<?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>2016 (4) TMI 790 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326676</link>
    <description>Where the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act reserves import policy-making to the Central Government, a subordinate authority cannot add restrictions through a public notice or administrative instruction absent valid delegation or a gazetted amendment. Conditions on drawal of lots, quantity limits, time limits, single application and debarment for poppy seed imports were therefore treated as an impermissible alteration of the Exim Code and held beyond jurisdiction. The court also accepted locus standi because the importer-exporter registration and intended import activity were directly affected by the impugned notice, creating a real business grievance. The public notice was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2016 14:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=424743" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 790 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326676</link>
      <description>Where the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act reserves import policy-making to the Central Government, a subordinate authority cannot add restrictions through a public notice or administrative instruction absent valid delegation or a gazetted amendment. Conditions on drawal of lots, quantity limits, time limits, single application and debarment for poppy seed imports were therefore treated as an impermissible alteration of the Exim Code and held beyond jurisdiction. The court also accepted locus standi because the importer-exporter registration and intended import activity were directly affected by the impugned notice, creating a real business grievance. The public notice was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326676</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>