<?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>1979 (10) TMI 231 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273218</link>
    <description>Argenti Nitras was treated as silver nitrate and classified as a silver compound falling within the export control entry, because classification depended on the substance&#039;s essential nature rather than its medicinal use or trade name; the commodity therefore remained subject to the export control order, including after amendment to a different schedule item. Promissory estoppel did not prevent the Government from changing the export policy, because the policy was expressly temporary, reserved the power of change, denied any enforceable right from pre-ban commitments, and the petitioners failed to show a sufficient change of position against a sovereign policy made in public interest. The challenge to the export ban accordingly failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2018 12:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=523253" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (10) TMI 231 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273218</link>
      <description>Argenti Nitras was treated as silver nitrate and classified as a silver compound falling within the export control entry, because classification depended on the substance&#039;s essential nature rather than its medicinal use or trade name; the commodity therefore remained subject to the export control order, including after amendment to a different schedule item. Promissory estoppel did not prevent the Government from changing the export policy, because the policy was expressly temporary, reserved the power of change, denied any enforceable right from pre-ban commitments, and the petitioners failed to show a sufficient change of position against a sovereign policy made in public interest. The challenge to the export ban accordingly failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273218</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>