<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Show-cause notice limits: courier penalties failed where new allegations, invalid KYC objections, and knowledge of prohibited exports were unproven.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103589</link>
    <description>Show-cause notice requirements preclude adjudication on material factual and legal grounds not alleged in the notice. Findings that an authorised courier was the consignor or exporter, lacked consignor authorisation, or knowingly participated in prohibited exports could not stand where the notice alleged only unauthorised outsourcing and deficient KYC compliance. KYC rules required reliable, independent and authentic verification material, not necessarily two identity documents; a genuine driving licence could suffice absent evidence that identity or address was unverifiable. Physical consignment pick-up was not a regulated assessment or clearance function, so its outsourcing did not establish a breach. Mere courier declarations and concealed prohibited goods did not prove knowledge, intent or facilitation; the penalties and impugned order were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2026 08:51:20 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2026 08:51:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=921817" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Show-cause notice limits: courier penalties failed where new allegations, invalid KYC objections, and knowledge of prohibited exports were unproven.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103589</link>
      <description>Show-cause notice requirements preclude adjudication on material factual and legal grounds not alleged in the notice. Findings that an authorised courier was the consignor or exporter, lacked consignor authorisation, or knowingly participated in prohibited exports could not stand where the notice alleged only unauthorised outsourcing and deficient KYC compliance. KYC rules required reliable, independent and authentic verification material, not necessarily two identity documents; a genuine driving licence could suffice absent evidence that identity or address was unverifiable. Physical consignment pick-up was not a regulated assessment or clearance function, so its outsourcing did not establish a breach. Mere courier declarations and concealed prohibited goods did not prove knowledge, intent or facilitation; the penalties and impugned order were set aside.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2026 08:51:20 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103589</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>