<?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 (9) TMI 1283 - PATNA HIGH COURT  </title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386515</link>
    <description>Seizure of betel nuts intercepted in transit was not interfered with because the goods were under investigation, the question of foreign origin remained unresolved, and the material could be examined through accredited laboratory reporting. Refusal of provisional release was also upheld because the laboratory material indicated that the goods were non-conforming and unsafe for human consumption, bringing them within customs release guidelines that deny release where statutory compliance requirements are not met. The writ petition therefore failed on both the seizure challenge and the request for provisional release, and the impugned orders were left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jan 2020 12:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=589219" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (9) TMI 1283 - PATNA HIGH COURT  </title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386515</link>
      <description>Seizure of betel nuts intercepted in transit was not interfered with because the goods were under investigation, the question of foreign origin remained unresolved, and the material could be examined through accredited laboratory reporting. Refusal of provisional release was also upheld because the laboratory material indicated that the goods were non-conforming and unsafe for human consumption, bringing them within customs release guidelines that deny release where statutory compliance requirements are not met. The writ petition therefore failed on both the seizure challenge and the request for provisional release, and the impugned orders were left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386515</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>