<?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>2010 (10) TMI 169 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202512</link>
    <description>Import of a vehicle under a public notice allowing entry without licence on payment of full customs duty, subject to a no-sale period of two years, required the importer to have title to the vehicle. The court held that the right to refrain from selling for the stipulated period necessarily presupposed ownership and enforceable transfer of title, so a vehicle imported in the name of a non-owner could not satisfy the policy condition. The Tribunal&#039;s view that ownership was unnecessary was found contrary to the public notice and perverse, and its direction to release the vehicle on payment of duty was unsustainable because duty payment was itself a condition precedent to the concession.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176091" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 169 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202512</link>
      <description>Import of a vehicle under a public notice allowing entry without licence on payment of full customs duty, subject to a no-sale period of two years, required the importer to have title to the vehicle. The court held that the right to refrain from selling for the stipulated period necessarily presupposed ownership and enforceable transfer of title, so a vehicle imported in the name of a non-owner could not satisfy the policy condition. The Tribunal&#039;s view that ownership was unnecessary was found contrary to the public notice and perverse, and its direction to release the vehicle on payment of duty was unsustainable because duty payment was itself a condition precedent to the concession.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202512</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>