<?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 (4) TMI 1713 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379269</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the petition challenging the suspension of a Customs Broker&#039;s license, holding that the suspension under Regulation 19(1) was appropriate. However, the court found the notice issued beyond the 90-day period under Regulation 20(1) to be invalid. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the 90-day timeline and set aside the impugned order, stating that any deviation from the prescribed timeline must be explicitly provided for in the regulation itself.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2019 11:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=569000" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 1713 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379269</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the petition challenging the suspension of a Customs Broker&#039;s license, holding that the suspension under Regulation 19(1) was appropriate. However, the court found the notice issued beyond the 90-day period under Regulation 20(1) to be invalid. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the 90-day timeline and set aside the impugned order, stating that any deviation from the prescribed timeline must be explicitly provided for in the regulation itself.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379269</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>