<?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>2015 (9) TMI 165 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263497</link>
    <description>Interim stay may be granted against an impugned DGFT order and its consequential communication where the petitioner shows a prima facie case. The Norms Committee&#039;s decision was treated as a material factor supporting interim protection. On the facts described, the Court found that suspension of the impugned order and communication was warranted pending final hearing, and the existence of an alternative remedy did not bar such protection at this stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2015 07:48:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395780" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 165 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263497</link>
      <description>Interim stay may be granted against an impugned DGFT order and its consequential communication where the petitioner shows a prima facie case. The Norms Committee&#039;s decision was treated as a material factor supporting interim protection. On the facts described, the Court found that suspension of the impugned order and communication was warranted pending final hearing, and the existence of an alternative remedy did not bar such protection at this stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263497</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>