<?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>2026 (9) TMI 1225 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799199</link>
    <description>Revocation of a Customs Broker licence under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 requires an established regulatory failure or misconduct, not apprehension of future conduct. A valid importer authorisation satisfied the authorisation requirement, while reliance on importer-supplied Bill of Entry and BIS documents did not show lack of due diligence where a brand discrepancy was detectable only on physical examination. Verified IEC, GST, UDYAM and PAN records met KYC obligations. Participation in examination, seizure, search and hearing proceedings negated non-cooperation allegations. No breach of the cited obligations was established, leaving revocation, security forfeiture and penalty without legal basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2026 07:32:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=923979" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (9) TMI 1225 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799199</link>
      <description>Revocation of a Customs Broker licence under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 requires an established regulatory failure or misconduct, not apprehension of future conduct. A valid importer authorisation satisfied the authorisation requirement, while reliance on importer-supplied Bill of Entry and BIS documents did not show lack of due diligence where a brand discrepancy was detectable only on physical examination. Verified IEC, GST, UDYAM and PAN records met KYC obligations. Participation in examination, seizure, search and hearing proceedings negated non-cooperation allegations. No breach of the cited obligations was established, leaving revocation, security forfeiture and penalty without legal basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799199</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>