<?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>2000 (6) TMI 360 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93904</link>
    <description>The exceptional suspension power under Regulation 21(2) of the Custom House Licensing Regulations, 1984 was confined to cases requiring immediate action, and could not be used where the alleged violations were old and two show cause notices were already pending. The regulatory scheme also contemplated an enquiry before action against the Custom House Agent. As no such enquiry had been conducted, the suspension was not legally sustainable and the order was vitiated in law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:57:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130964" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (6) TMI 360 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93904</link>
      <description>The exceptional suspension power under Regulation 21(2) of the Custom House Licensing Regulations, 1984 was confined to cases requiring immediate action, and could not be used where the alleged violations were old and two show cause notices were already pending. The regulatory scheme also contemplated an enquiry before action against the Custom House Agent. As no such enquiry had been conducted, the suspension was not legally sustainable and the order was vitiated in law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93904</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>