<?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>2013 (6) TMI 91 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234266</link>
    <description>A prohibition order under Regulation 21 was invalid because it was issued without giving the Customs House Agent an opportunity of hearing. The High Court treated the order as one with civil consequences and held that such administrative action must comply with natural justice. As the petitioner was not heard before the restriction was imposed, the order was found arbitrary and unsustainable, and it was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2013 11:20:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196678" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (6) TMI 91 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234266</link>
      <description>A prohibition order under Regulation 21 was invalid because it was issued without giving the Customs House Agent an opportunity of hearing. The High Court treated the order as one with civil consequences and held that such administrative action must comply with natural justice. As the petitioner was not heard before the restriction was imposed, the order was found arbitrary and unsustainable, and it was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234266</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>