https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346750 A foreign company could not succeed on a writ claim founded on Article 19(1)(g), which protects citizens and Indian juristic persons, and its Article 14 challenge also failed on the facts. A customs demand made under Clause 9A of the Treaty of Transit was upheld because the importer had given a binding undertaking, the goods admittedly did not reach Nepal, and the demand did not exceed the treaty obligation. No compensation was payable for alleged theft in transit because the treaty imposed no such obligation on the Indian authorities and the record did not conclusively prove the loss. en-us Thu, 15 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Aug 2017 07:29:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346750 A foreign company could not succeed on a writ claim founded on Article 19(1)(g), which protects citizens and Indian juristic persons, and its Article 14 challenge also failed on the facts. A customs demand made under Clause 9A of the Treaty of Transit was upheld because the importer had given a binding undertaking, the goods admittedly did not reach Nepal, and the demand did not exceed the treaty obligation. No compensation was payable for alleged theft in transit because the treaty imposed no such obligation on the Indian authorities and the record did not conclusively prove the loss. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 15 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346750