<?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>2003 (3) TMI 752 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200752</link>
    <description>DGFT clarifications cannot override EPCG policy or licence conditions where they conflict with the export obligation undertaken by the importer. The licence required export of cocoa and chocolate products within the stipulated period, and the imported machinery was found to comprise two distinct plants; chocolate made from one plant was sold only in the domestic market, with no chocolate exports shown. A clarification that effectively substituted an obligation to export either cocoa products or chocolate for the agreed requirement to export both was beyond DGFT&#039;s power and inconsistent with the policy and licence terms. The clarification was therefore not binding to that extent, and full discharge of the export obligation was not established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2018 10:54:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=517457" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 752 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200752</link>
      <description>DGFT clarifications cannot override EPCG policy or licence conditions where they conflict with the export obligation undertaken by the importer. The licence required export of cocoa and chocolate products within the stipulated period, and the imported machinery was found to comprise two distinct plants; chocolate made from one plant was sold only in the domestic market, with no chocolate exports shown. A clarification that effectively substituted an obligation to export either cocoa products or chocolate for the agreed requirement to export both was beyond DGFT&#039;s power and inconsistent with the policy and licence terms. The clarification was therefore not binding to that extent, and full discharge of the export obligation was not established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200752</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>