<?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>2011 (1) TMI 1303 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166949</link>
    <description>A fraud- or misrepresentation-based advance licence remains operative until it is lawfully cancelled or suspended by the competent licensing authority, so customs authorities cannot deny exemption or sustain a duty demand merely on the allegation that forged export documents were used to obtain it. On the facts stated, the uncancelled transferable licence was treated as valid for the import, and the duty demand was set aside. Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was also not attracted because the licence holder had not imported the goods, and the ingredients of an act or omission rendering the goods liable to confiscation, or abetment of such conduct, were not established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=368814" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (1) TMI 1303 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166949</link>
      <description>A fraud- or misrepresentation-based advance licence remains operative until it is lawfully cancelled or suspended by the competent licensing authority, so customs authorities cannot deny exemption or sustain a duty demand merely on the allegation that forged export documents were used to obtain it. On the facts stated, the uncancelled transferable licence was treated as valid for the import, and the duty demand was set aside. Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was also not attracted because the licence holder had not imported the goods, and the ingredients of an act or omission rendering the goods liable to confiscation, or abetment of such conduct, were not established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166949</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>