<?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>1984 (8) TMI 335 - CEGAT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167179</link>
    <description>REP licences and OGL could not be used to import goods falling within Appendix 9 restrictions, because the policy limited the facility to items otherwise permissible under Appendix 10 and did not extend it to canalised goods. Piperazine was treated as a canalised entry covering the active ingredient and allied forms, including piperazine anhydrous, so the goods remained impermissible under the Import Policy despite variations in moisture content. Prior mistaken customs clearances did not create estoppel against enforcement, though they were relevant to quantum, and the redemption fine was reduced as excessive while confiscation was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:35:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=370720" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (8) TMI 335 - CEGAT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167179</link>
      <description>REP licences and OGL could not be used to import goods falling within Appendix 9 restrictions, because the policy limited the facility to items otherwise permissible under Appendix 10 and did not extend it to canalised goods. Piperazine was treated as a canalised entry covering the active ingredient and allied forms, including piperazine anhydrous, so the goods remained impermissible under the Import Policy despite variations in moisture content. Prior mistaken customs clearances did not create estoppel against enforcement, though they were relevant to quantum, and the redemption fine was reduced as excessive while confiscation was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167179</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>