<?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>2009 (5) TMI 954 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187943</link>
    <description>Writ relief was refused for claims relating to replenishment licences and compensation because the record did not establish removal of deficiencies, pursuit of appeals, or supporting correspondence, and the claimed damages and interest were speculative and unsupported by evidence. The Court held that a writ court was not the proper forum to determine such damages on the material before it, while leaving the petitioner free to pursue civil or other appropriate proceedings, including exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Cash Compensatory Support claims were sustained as time-barred under the Export Import Policy, which required rejection of applications received after 24 months from the last month of export. No direct writ relief was granted on the Additional CCS claim, though the petitioner was permitted to approach the Director General of Foreign Trade for consideration in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Nov 2016 12:06:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=447493" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 954 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187943</link>
      <description>Writ relief was refused for claims relating to replenishment licences and compensation because the record did not establish removal of deficiencies, pursuit of appeals, or supporting correspondence, and the claimed damages and interest were speculative and unsupported by evidence. The Court held that a writ court was not the proper forum to determine such damages on the material before it, while leaving the petitioner free to pursue civil or other appropriate proceedings, including exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Cash Compensatory Support claims were sustained as time-barred under the Export Import Policy, which required rejection of applications received after 24 months from the last month of export. No direct writ relief was granted on the Additional CCS claim, though the petitioner was permitted to approach the Director General of Foreign Trade for consideration in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187943</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>