<?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 (12) TMI 564 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179213</link>
    <description>Customs circulars aimed at goods imported for domestic consumption did not bar permission for re-imported tea rejected for non-conformity with food standards to be reprocessed in a bonded 100% export oriented unit and re-exported under customs supervision. The authority had to consider whether reprocessing could bring the goods into compliance and whether suitable safeguards could ensure that the goods did not enter the domestic market. Given the perishable nature of the consignment, a practical approach was required. Permission could not be refused on the circulars alone, and the request was to be considered expeditiously; the penalty already imposed was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2016 11:10:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=417339" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (12) TMI 564 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179213</link>
      <description>Customs circulars aimed at goods imported for domestic consumption did not bar permission for re-imported tea rejected for non-conformity with food standards to be reprocessed in a bonded 100% export oriented unit and re-exported under customs supervision. The authority had to consider whether reprocessing could bring the goods into compliance and whether suitable safeguards could ensure that the goods did not enter the domestic market. Given the perishable nature of the consignment, a practical approach was required. Permission could not be refused on the circulars alone, and the request was to be considered expeditiously; the penalty already imposed was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179213</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>