<?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 (5) TMI 993 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177358</link>
    <description>Customs sampling was found prima facie arbitrary where a second sample was drawn after an earlier sample had been found satisfactory, and any further test should have been conducted in the petitioner&#039;s presence. A negative report from the Mysore laboratory was treated as unreliable because the test could not lawfully have been carried out there under the applicable sample analysis framework. Given the delay and risk of deterioration, fresh samples were directed to be taken in the presence of the petitioner&#039;s representative for examination by the Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata, while the petitioner was protected from recovery action and the goods were kept from destruction pending further orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2016 10:05:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=412409" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 993 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177358</link>
      <description>Customs sampling was found prima facie arbitrary where a second sample was drawn after an earlier sample had been found satisfactory, and any further test should have been conducted in the petitioner&#039;s presence. A negative report from the Mysore laboratory was treated as unreliable because the test could not lawfully have been carried out there under the applicable sample analysis framework. Given the delay and risk of deterioration, fresh samples were directed to be taken in the presence of the petitioner&#039;s representative for examination by the Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata, while the petitioner was protected from recovery action and the goods were kept from destruction pending further orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177358</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>