<?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>1962 (5) TMI 23 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150731</link>
    <description>Customs confiscation under Section 167(8) can extend to breach of a licence condition only where that condition forms part of a valid import-control order under Section 3 of the 1947 Act. A licence condition imposed under such an order is enforceable as part of the order, but a public notice not made under Section 3 does not itself create that effect. The Court also stated that a licence obtained by misrepresentation is not void ab initio; it remains operative until cancelled by the competent authority. On the assumed facts, the import under a subsisting licence could not be treated as prohibited or restricted goods, and confiscation was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 May 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 May 2025 16:33:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167771" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (5) TMI 23 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150731</link>
      <description>Customs confiscation under Section 167(8) can extend to breach of a licence condition only where that condition forms part of a valid import-control order under Section 3 of the 1947 Act. A licence condition imposed under such an order is enforceable as part of the order, but a public notice not made under Section 3 does not itself create that effect. The Court also stated that a licence obtained by misrepresentation is not void ab initio; it remains operative until cancelled by the competent authority. On the assumed facts, the import under a subsisting licence could not be treated as prohibited or restricted goods, and confiscation was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 May 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150731</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>