<?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>2018 (2) TMI 588 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355167</link>
    <description>The court set aside the communication directing the freezing of the petitioner&#039;s bank account, stating that the DRI officials acted beyond their jurisdiction and without proper authority under the Customs Act. The petition was allowed, clarifying that the DRI could take permissible actions under the Customs Act, with parties bearing their own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2018 12:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508444" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 588 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355167</link>
      <description>The court set aside the communication directing the freezing of the petitioner&#039;s bank account, stating that the DRI officials acted beyond their jurisdiction and without proper authority under the Customs Act. The petition was allowed, clarifying that the DRI could take permissible actions under the Customs Act, with parties bearing their own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355167</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>