<?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 (5) TMI 87 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379359</link>
    <description>Clubbing of advance authorisations was unavailable where the earlier authorisation&#039;s export obligation period, including the maximum permissible extension, had already expired; the later amendment did not alter that restriction. On the admitted facts, the request for clubbing was made too late, so refusal by the Policy Relaxation Committee was in accordance with the Handbook of Procedures. The defaulter declaration and placement in the Denied Entry List were also upheld because the exporter had not discharged the export obligation within time and had not furnished timely proof of fulfilment; later correspondence was treated as a fresh request for clubbing and extension, not proof of redemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2019 14:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=569136" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 87 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379359</link>
      <description>Clubbing of advance authorisations was unavailable where the earlier authorisation&#039;s export obligation period, including the maximum permissible extension, had already expired; the later amendment did not alter that restriction. On the admitted facts, the request for clubbing was made too late, so refusal by the Policy Relaxation Committee was in accordance with the Handbook of Procedures. The defaulter declaration and placement in the Denied Entry List were also upheld because the exporter had not discharged the export obligation within time and had not furnished timely proof of fulfilment; later correspondence was treated as a fresh request for clubbing and extension, not proof of redemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379359</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>