CESTAT Chennai held that Custom House Agent (CHA) cannot be expected to examine and ensure the nature of the goods in the consignment. Accordingly, penalty u-s 114 of the Customs Act cannot be levied on CHA alleging that they didn’t ensure correct classification of the goods.
CESTAT Delhi held that responsibility of the Customs Broker under Regulation 10(n) does not include keeping a continuous surveillance on the client to ensure that he continues to operate from that address and has not changed his operations.
ITAT Pune held that expenditure incurred on repairs and renovation of the asset is revenue expenditure as no new asset has been created.
