<?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 (12) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80964</link>
    <description>Liability under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act arose where importation was effected through an unauthorised authorisation against a non-transferable additional licence. Para 118(2) of the 1985-88 Import-Export Procedures barred an Export House from appointing an agent or issuing a letter of authority to operate such a licence or import goods without prior approval, so the authorisation used for the import was contrary to policy. The arrangement could not escape scrutiny merely because it was described as a power of attorney, since the executant remained involved in the unauthorised importation. The penalty was upheld, but the quantum was reduced in light of the circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:39:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118109" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (12) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80964</link>
      <description>Liability under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act arose where importation was effected through an unauthorised authorisation against a non-transferable additional licence. Para 118(2) of the 1985-88 Import-Export Procedures barred an Export House from appointing an agent or issuing a letter of authority to operate such a licence or import goods without prior approval, so the authorisation used for the import was contrary to policy. The arrangement could not escape scrutiny merely because it was described as a power of attorney, since the executant remained involved in the unauthorised importation. The penalty was upheld, but the quantum was reduced in light of the circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80964</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>