<?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>2006 (2) TMI 482 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118151</link>
    <description>Penalty proceedings under Section 4-I(1)(a) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 apply only where imported goods are used or utilised contrary to licence conditions. The provision does not cover mere failure to fulfil an export obligation under an import licence, because export performance conditions are distinct from user conditions governing the imported goods. On the admitted facts, the allegation was only non-fulfilment of export obligation, so the statutory ingredients for action were absent and the notice lacked jurisdiction. The preservation of proceedings under Section 20(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 did not cure the defect where the substantive provision was inapplicable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:26:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155148" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 482 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118151</link>
      <description>Penalty proceedings under Section 4-I(1)(a) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 apply only where imported goods are used or utilised contrary to licence conditions. The provision does not cover mere failure to fulfil an export obligation under an import licence, because export performance conditions are distinct from user conditions governing the imported goods. On the admitted facts, the allegation was only non-fulfilment of export obligation, so the statutory ingredients for action were absent and the notice lacked jurisdiction. The preservation of proceedings under Section 20(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 did not cure the defect where the substantive provision was inapplicable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118151</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>