<?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>1983 (11) TMI 201 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74065</link>
    <description>Export House Certificate entitlement under the April 1978 to March 1979 import policy was upheld because the earlier governing decision had already resolved the controversy, making the impugned orders unsustainable and requiring issuance of the certificate with consideration of any timely additional licence application on merits. The Court also held that import entitlement after certification was subject only to bans in force at the time of actual import; later canalisation did not require recourse to a canalising agency where the item was not previously canalised. Delay in disposing of the petition could not prejudice the petitioners, and the writ petition succeeded with the orders quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112344" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (11) TMI 201 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74065</link>
      <description>Export House Certificate entitlement under the April 1978 to March 1979 import policy was upheld because the earlier governing decision had already resolved the controversy, making the impugned orders unsustainable and requiring issuance of the certificate with consideration of any timely additional licence application on merits. The Court also held that import entitlement after certification was subject only to bans in force at the time of actual import; later canalisation did not require recourse to a canalising agency where the item was not previously canalised. Delay in disposing of the petition could not prejudice the petitioners, and the writ petition succeeded with the orders quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74065</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>