<?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>1990 (1) TMI 171 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80316</link>
    <description>A revalidated additional import licence remained confined to the express endorsement limiting imports during the extended shipment period to items in Appendices 5 and 7, while excluding Appendix 26 goods except where covered by an existing irrevocable letter of credit. Because the imported goods did not fall within the permitted appendices, the importer could not invoke broader entitlements under paragraph 186(7) contrary to the restrictive revalidation condition. The alternative question on the later import policy restriction under paragraph 255(3) was therefore unnecessary to decide. The goods were held not to be covered by the licence, and the confiscation order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:55:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117462" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (1) TMI 171 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80316</link>
      <description>A revalidated additional import licence remained confined to the express endorsement limiting imports during the extended shipment period to items in Appendices 5 and 7, while excluding Appendix 26 goods except where covered by an existing irrevocable letter of credit. Because the imported goods did not fall within the permitted appendices, the importer could not invoke broader entitlements under paragraph 186(7) contrary to the restrictive revalidation condition. The alternative question on the later import policy restriction under paragraph 255(3) was therefore unnecessary to decide. The goods were held not to be covered by the licence, and the confiscation order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80316</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>