<?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 (10) TMI 63 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237608</link>
    <description>Detention of imported construction sand for want of plant quarantine clearance was not justified on the record where no separate customs misdeclaration or other infringement was alleged. The Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003 regulates specified agricultural and plant-related articles, and sand falls within its scope only if it answers the statutory definitions and is imported for the contemplated purposes. On the facts noted, construction sand imported for trading was not shown to require mandatory quarantine clearance, and the import was also treated as a free item. The Court confined itself to the legality of continued detention, leaving any confiscation or adjudication on merits open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2014 15:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=200015" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 63 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237608</link>
      <description>Detention of imported construction sand for want of plant quarantine clearance was not justified on the record where no separate customs misdeclaration or other infringement was alleged. The Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003 regulates specified agricultural and plant-related articles, and sand falls within its scope only if it answers the statutory definitions and is imported for the contemplated purposes. On the facts noted, construction sand imported for trading was not shown to require mandatory quarantine clearance, and the import was also treated as a free item. The Court confined itself to the legality of continued detention, leaving any confiscation or adjudication on merits open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237608</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>