<?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>2012 (10) TMI 236 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217287</link>
    <description>Sales of goods to foreign tourists against foreign exchange were treated as deemed exports, and the Court read the advance licence scheme, registered exporter provisions and handbook harmoniously to give effect to the shared objective of earning foreign exchange. The distinction drawn between rep licence and advance licence was found too restrictive, and procedural objections such as the absence of DEEC entries were not decisive where the policy clarification showed they were not required for deemed exports to foreign tourists. On the facts, the failed foreign order was bona fide, foreign exchange was realised through authorised channels, and the export obligation was substantially met, so the demand and related order could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190663" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 236 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217287</link>
      <description>Sales of goods to foreign tourists against foreign exchange were treated as deemed exports, and the Court read the advance licence scheme, registered exporter provisions and handbook harmoniously to give effect to the shared objective of earning foreign exchange. The distinction drawn between rep licence and advance licence was found too restrictive, and procedural objections such as the absence of DEEC entries were not decisive where the policy clarification showed they were not required for deemed exports to foreign tourists. On the facts, the failed foreign order was bona fide, foreign exchange was realised through authorised channels, and the export obligation was substantially met, so the demand and related order could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217287</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>