<?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 273 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234448</link>
    <description>Secondhand digital multifunction print and copying machines were treated as freely importable secondhand capital goods when the Foreign Trade Policy and Handbook of Procedures were read together, so they were not prohibited merely because they appeared in a restricted category. The imported consignments were found to be complete reusable machines in working condition, not waste or hazardous waste under the 2008 Rules, and prior MoEF permission was therefore unnecessary. Confiscation, re-export and penalty could not be sustained without the mandatory show cause notice and hearing under Section 124 of the Customs Act, and the writ petitions were held maintainable despite the alternative remedy plea.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jan 2014 16:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196859" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (6) TMI 273 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234448</link>
      <description>Secondhand digital multifunction print and copying machines were treated as freely importable secondhand capital goods when the Foreign Trade Policy and Handbook of Procedures were read together, so they were not prohibited merely because they appeared in a restricted category. The imported consignments were found to be complete reusable machines in working condition, not waste or hazardous waste under the 2008 Rules, and prior MoEF permission was therefore unnecessary. Confiscation, re-export and penalty could not be sustained without the mandatory show cause notice and hearing under Section 124 of the Customs Act, and the writ petitions were held maintainable despite the alternative remedy plea.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234448</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>