<?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>1986 (11) TMI 261 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73620</link>
    <description>Import licences under paragraph 84(1)(a) of the Import Trade Control Hand Book were construed as permitting flexibility to import any item covered by the licence, without limit of quantity or value, provided the total imports did not exceed the overall face value of the licence. The Delhi High Court noted that the three stainless steel items were commercially distinct commodities and that the petitioner&#039;s imports remained within the licence value. On that basis, the authorities erred in restricting the licence to a single item, and the findings of contravention, confiscation and penalty were unsustainable. The impugned orders were quashed and refund of the fine with costs was directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2011 14:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111899" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (11) TMI 261 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73620</link>
      <description>Import licences under paragraph 84(1)(a) of the Import Trade Control Hand Book were construed as permitting flexibility to import any item covered by the licence, without limit of quantity or value, provided the total imports did not exceed the overall face value of the licence. The Delhi High Court noted that the three stainless steel items were commercially distinct commodities and that the petitioner&#039;s imports remained within the licence value. On that basis, the authorities erred in restricting the licence to a single item, and the findings of contravention, confiscation and penalty were unsustainable. The impugned orders were quashed and refund of the fine with costs was directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73620</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>