<?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>2010 (2) TMI 334 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77373</link>
    <description>Deemed export duty drawback is available only where the claimant satisfies the Exim Policy conditions, including a valid claim basis and genuine supporting documents. The Delhi High Court record states that the petitioner had claimed the goods were imported and had suffered customs duty, but failed to substantiate that assertion despite opportunities, and the disclaimer certificates were doubted. Because drawback presupposes an actual incidence of duty, the legal fiction of deemed export could not be extended to create a benefit without the required factual and legal foundation. Promissory estoppel could not protect an illegal grant. The withdrawal of the drawback and the demand for refund were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115542" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 334 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77373</link>
      <description>Deemed export duty drawback is available only where the claimant satisfies the Exim Policy conditions, including a valid claim basis and genuine supporting documents. The Delhi High Court record states that the petitioner had claimed the goods were imported and had suffered customs duty, but failed to substantiate that assertion despite opportunities, and the disclaimer certificates were doubted. Because drawback presupposes an actual incidence of duty, the legal fiction of deemed export could not be extended to create a benefit without the required factual and legal foundation. Promissory estoppel could not protect an illegal grant. The withdrawal of the drawback and the demand for refund were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77373</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>