<?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>1996 (7) TMI 329 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85685</link>
    <description>A valid and unchallenged emergency spares licence, with no item-wise value or quantity restriction, protected the import from confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. Customs authorities could not deny clearance merely because the importer had used the licence value for one specified item or because the import was said to offend the spirit of the policy. The policy provision relied on by the revenue did not require item-wise allocation of demand in the manner asserted, and in the absence of any reservation in the licence, the authorities were bound by its terms. A belated objection that the appellants were only L.A. holders was not entertained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Aug 2011 15:26:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122752" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 329 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85685</link>
      <description>A valid and unchallenged emergency spares licence, with no item-wise value or quantity restriction, protected the import from confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. Customs authorities could not deny clearance merely because the importer had used the licence value for one specified item or because the import was said to offend the spirit of the policy. The policy provision relied on by the revenue did not require item-wise allocation of demand in the manner asserted, and in the absence of any reservation in the licence, the authorities were bound by its terms. A belated objection that the appellants were only L.A. holders was not entertained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85685</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>