<?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>2017 (3) TMI 1398 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340895</link>
    <description>The court modified the order, requiring the petitioner to provide a PD Bond and a bank guarantee for 10% of the disputed amount without prejudice, keeping the bank guarantee active until adjudication. The respondents were directed to release the goods within two days of compliance. The court clarified that its observations would not impact the final adjudication of the show cause notice, and the writ petition was disposed of without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=463337" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1398 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340895</link>
      <description>The court modified the order, requiring the petitioner to provide a PD Bond and a bank guarantee for 10% of the disputed amount without prejudice, keeping the bank guarantee active until adjudication. The respondents were directed to release the goods within two days of compliance. The court clarified that its observations would not impact the final adjudication of the show cause notice, and the writ petition was disposed of without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340895</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>