https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268282 Bronopol imported as an insecticide required prior permission from the Registration Committee under the operative DGFT notification, even where non-insecticidal use was claimed. The exemption under section 38(1)(b) of the Insecticides Act was not available on the facts because the importer was only a trader and no material established the asserted end-use. The notification issued under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, read with the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014, was binding on the importer and customs, so clearance could not be granted without the prescribed permission. en-us Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 May 2016 16:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268282 Bronopol imported as an insecticide required prior permission from the Registration Committee under the operative DGFT notification, even where non-insecticidal use was claimed. The exemption under section 38(1)(b) of the Insecticides Act was not available on the facts because the importer was only a trader and no material established the asserted end-use. The notification issued under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, read with the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014, was binding on the importer and customs, so clearance could not be granted without the prescribed permission. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268282