<?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>1986 (5) TMI 263 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166953</link>
    <description>Additional licences granted on restitutionary grounds did not permit import of dry fruits where the goods were not importable under both the earlier and prevailing import policies, or where the later policy placed them in a restricted category. Dry fruits, other than cashewnuts and dates, were freely importable under the 1978-79 policy, but they were not open to import under the 1985-88 policy and could not be brought in under the general raw-material category because they were consumer goods of agricultural origin. The challenge on Article 32 maintainability also failed on the facts, as the absence of objection to an interim order did not defeat the grievance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 May 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Dec 2014 22:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=368872" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (5) TMI 263 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166953</link>
      <description>Additional licences granted on restitutionary grounds did not permit import of dry fruits where the goods were not importable under both the earlier and prevailing import policies, or where the later policy placed them in a restricted category. Dry fruits, other than cashewnuts and dates, were freely importable under the 1978-79 policy, but they were not open to import under the 1985-88 policy and could not be brought in under the general raw-material category because they were consumer goods of agricultural origin. The challenge on Article 32 maintainability also failed on the facts, as the absence of objection to an interim order did not defeat the grievance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 May 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166953</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>