<?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>2019 (1) TMI 135 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372970</link>
    <description>A preventive prohibition under Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 is only an interim measure to keep a Customs House Agent away from the relevant offices and sections at the initial stage. Once substantive proceedings under Regulation 22 are initiated, Regulation 21 no longer serves its purpose and the prohibition becomes redundant. The Court also noted that an earlier similar order had already been set aside for breach of natural justice, so repeated parallel restraint on the same allegations could not be sustained. The impugned communication was quashed, and no view was expressed on the merits of the pending Tribunal appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2019 12:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=550882" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 135 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372970</link>
      <description>A preventive prohibition under Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 is only an interim measure to keep a Customs House Agent away from the relevant offices and sections at the initial stage. Once substantive proceedings under Regulation 22 are initiated, Regulation 21 no longer serves its purpose and the prohibition becomes redundant. The Court also noted that an earlier similar order had already been set aside for breach of natural justice, so repeated parallel restraint on the same allegations could not be sustained. The impugned communication was quashed, and no view was expressed on the merits of the pending Tribunal appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372970</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>