<?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>1980 (1) TMI 147 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74615</link>
    <description>Export permission under the pre-control commitment policy required proof of a pre-notice commitment and authorised-dealer advance payment covering the full f.o.b. value. The exporters&#039; remittance records were treated as establishing compliance, while objections concerning ante-dated contracts, bank-document authenticity, timeliness and value coverage lacked support; refusal of permission was therefore unsustainable. A subsequent export-policy change operated prospectively and could not retrospectively govern an application already decided under the earlier policy. The appeal failed, leaving undisturbed the limited export permission granted by the Single Judge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2011 18:37:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112894" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (1) TMI 147 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74615</link>
      <description>Export permission under the pre-control commitment policy required proof of a pre-notice commitment and authorised-dealer advance payment covering the full f.o.b. value. The exporters&#039; remittance records were treated as establishing compliance, while objections concerning ante-dated contracts, bank-document authenticity, timeliness and value coverage lacked support; refusal of permission was therefore unsustainable. A subsequent export-policy change operated prospectively and could not retrospectively govern an application already decided under the earlier policy. The appeal failed, leaving undisturbed the limited export permission granted by the Single Judge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74615</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>