<?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 (7) TMI 456 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203107</link>
    <description>Customs authorities were entitled to invoke the bank guarantee furnished against advance licences under the export-import scheme where the exemption conditions were not shown to have been fulfilled. The record did not establish a discharge certificate, and it indicated possible breach of the customs notification, including a false declaration about manufacturing facilities. The court applied the Customs Act and the notification to hold that the bond could be enforced despite the petitioner&#039;s claim of substantial compliance and partial discharge of export obligation, especially where the licence appeared to have been obtained by misrepresentation. The challenge to the bank guarantee invocation therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 May 2011 10:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176675" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 456 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203107</link>
      <description>Customs authorities were entitled to invoke the bank guarantee furnished against advance licences under the export-import scheme where the exemption conditions were not shown to have been fulfilled. The record did not establish a discharge certificate, and it indicated possible breach of the customs notification, including a false declaration about manufacturing facilities. The court applied the Customs Act and the notification to hold that the bond could be enforced despite the petitioner&#039;s claim of substantial compliance and partial discharge of export obligation, especially where the licence appeared to have been obtained by misrepresentation. The challenge to the bank guarantee invocation therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203107</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>