<?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 (10) TMI 565 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333545</link>
    <description>Conditional relaxation under the foreign trade policy is not available as an enforceable right, and authorities may grant clubbing of advance authorisations on terms imposed in public interest after case-specific consideration. The Bombay HC upheld the restriction that export obligation under the clubbed authorisations had to be fulfilled within 48 months from the earliest authorisation, finding it a permissible condition attached to relief and not arbitrary. The Court also found no breach of natural justice or absence of reasons, noting that the written representations were considered, reasons were recorded, and no prejudice from the absence of an oral hearing was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Apr 2017 13:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=445058" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 565 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333545</link>
      <description>Conditional relaxation under the foreign trade policy is not available as an enforceable right, and authorities may grant clubbing of advance authorisations on terms imposed in public interest after case-specific consideration. The Bombay HC upheld the restriction that export obligation under the clubbed authorisations had to be fulfilled within 48 months from the earliest authorisation, finding it a permissible condition attached to relief and not arbitrary. The Court also found no breach of natural justice or absence of reasons, noting that the written representations were considered, reasons were recorded, and no prejudice from the absence of an oral hearing was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333545</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>