<?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>1987 (10) TMI 165 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73311</link>
    <description>Administrative debarment under Clause 6 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 could not be imposed on the petitioner companies without notice or hearing, because the measure carried serious civil consequences and natural justice was not clearly excluded by statute. The authority was also required to make the jurisdictional findings demanded by its own guidelines, including whether the associated company had substantially benefited from the offence and whether a director had controlling interest. As no hearing was given and no such findings were recorded, the action reflected violation of natural justice and non-application of mind, and the debarment was quashed to that extent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111590" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (10) TMI 165 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73311</link>
      <description>Administrative debarment under Clause 6 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 could not be imposed on the petitioner companies without notice or hearing, because the measure carried serious civil consequences and natural justice was not clearly excluded by statute. The authority was also required to make the jurisdictional findings demanded by its own guidelines, including whether the associated company had substantially benefited from the offence and whether a director had controlling interest. As no hearing was given and no such findings were recorded, the action reflected violation of natural justice and non-application of mind, and the debarment was quashed to that extent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73311</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>