<?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 (5) TMI 891 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327910</link>
    <description>Where a foreign trade scheme requires Bank Certificates of Export and Realisation and a Customs-endorsed DEEC book to prove discharge of export obligation, non-production of those prescribed documents meant the obligation was not established. Exports made before issuance of the advance licence could not be treated as compliance with an obligation arising under that licence. The court also noted that, absent any challenge to the governing procedure, judicial review could not be used to override the scheme or reappreciate concurrent factual findings of the authorities. The penalty and consequential orders were therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Nov 2016 14:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=429131" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 891 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327910</link>
      <description>Where a foreign trade scheme requires Bank Certificates of Export and Realisation and a Customs-endorsed DEEC book to prove discharge of export obligation, non-production of those prescribed documents meant the obligation was not established. Exports made before issuance of the advance licence could not be treated as compliance with an obligation arising under that licence. The court also noted that, absent any challenge to the governing procedure, judicial review could not be used to override the scheme or reappreciate concurrent factual findings of the authorities. The penalty and consequential orders were therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327910</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>