<?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 (8) TMI 1097 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173497</link>
    <description>An administrative prohibition order restraining a customs house agent from working at specified customs locations was treated as a non-appealable administrative , because no statutory provision was shown making such an order appealable under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation, 2004. As no subsequent suspension or revocation of licence had been initiated, the challenge failed at the threshold and the appeal was held not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:18:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397599" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 1097 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173497</link>
      <description>An administrative prohibition order restraining a customs house agent from working at specified customs locations was treated as a non-appealable administrative , because no statutory provision was shown making such an order appealable under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation, 2004. As no subsequent suspension or revocation of licence had been initiated, the challenge failed at the threshold and the appeal was held not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173497</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>