<?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 (8) TMI 970 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331586</link>
    <description>The court refrained from deciding on the ownership dispute but directed the Competent Authority to review an application for provisional release of the goods within four weeks, as per relevant regulations. The judgment highlighted the necessity of timely investigations and adjudication in export cases to prevent evidence loss and procedural delays.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=439364" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 970 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331586</link>
      <description>The court refrained from deciding on the ownership dispute but directed the Competent Authority to review an application for provisional release of the goods within four weeks, as per relevant regulations. The judgment highlighted the necessity of timely investigations and adjudication in export cases to prevent evidence loss and procedural delays.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331586</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>