<?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>2006 (6) TMI 43 - Appellate Tribunal Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=858</link>
    <description>The article discusses two key customs law points under the Drawback Rules and the Customs Act: first, whether DRI officers could issue show cause notices and whether the Commissioner could adjudicate; the text states that such jurisdictional objections failed because the Act permits valid appointment of customs officers and exercise of powers within the statutory scheme. Second, it addresses drawback recovery for non-realisation of export proceeds; the text states that admitted non-realisation within the permitted time supported recovery, and the Drawback Rules could not override the Customs Act. The common order of recovery was sustained and both appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40292" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (6) TMI 43 - Appellate Tribunal Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=858</link>
      <description>The article discusses two key customs law points under the Drawback Rules and the Customs Act: first, whether DRI officers could issue show cause notices and whether the Commissioner could adjudicate; the text states that such jurisdictional objections failed because the Act permits valid appointment of customs officers and exercise of powers within the statutory scheme. Second, it addresses drawback recovery for non-realisation of export proceeds; the text states that admitted non-realisation within the permitted time supported recovery, and the Drawback Rules could not override the Customs Act. The common order of recovery was sustained and both appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=858</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>