<?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>1965 (7) TMI 56 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160496</link>
    <description>Recognition of a dissolved firm&#039;s agreed division of quota rights was treated as a retrospective acknowledgment, not a fresh source of entitlement, where the licensing authority was satisfied on the evidence and the scheme did not make prior approval an express condition precedent. The article also notes that an import licence application was not defeated merely because recognition had not yet been completed when filed, since the administrative delay was not treated as dispositive on the majority view. A later policy statement on non-availability of the commodity did not itself bar a licence for an earlier period because only a notified prohibition or restriction had statutory effect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339977" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (7) TMI 56 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160496</link>
      <description>Recognition of a dissolved firm&#039;s agreed division of quota rights was treated as a retrospective acknowledgment, not a fresh source of entitlement, where the licensing authority was satisfied on the evidence and the scheme did not make prior approval an express condition precedent. The article also notes that an import licence application was not defeated merely because recognition had not yet been completed when filed, since the administrative delay was not treated as dispositive on the majority view. A later policy statement on non-availability of the commodity did not itself bar a licence for an earlier period because only a notified prohibition or restriction had statutory effect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160496</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>