<?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 (11) TMI 1027 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268218</link>
    <description>Kerala HC examined whether boric acid and other insecticides with non-insecticidal use could be subjected to an import-permit condition under foreign trade policy. It held that the Insecticides Act, 1968 is supplemental to other laws, and that once the import policy was notified under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, the permit requirement became subordinate legislation rather than a mere executive instruction. The Court further stated that exemption under Section 38 did not create an unrestricted right to import, and an end-use based control could validly prevent misuse or diversion. The broader discrimination challenge was left open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2016 11:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=406126" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 1027 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268218</link>
      <description>Kerala HC examined whether boric acid and other insecticides with non-insecticidal use could be subjected to an import-permit condition under foreign trade policy. It held that the Insecticides Act, 1968 is supplemental to other laws, and that once the import policy was notified under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, the permit requirement became subordinate legislation rather than a mere executive instruction. The Court further stated that exemption under Section 38 did not create an unrestricted right to import, and an end-use based control could validly prevent misuse or diversion. The broader discrimination challenge was left open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268218</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>