<?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>2001 (9) TMI 1169 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283868</link>
    <description>The appeal was dismissed, and the Supreme Court expressly left open the question of law concerning Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The order also records that delay was condoned before dismissal. The operative effect is that no ruling was given on the valuation rule itself, and the legal question remains unresolved in this order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2019 18:40:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=591143" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (9) TMI 1169 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283868</link>
      <description>The appeal was dismissed, and the Supreme Court expressly left open the question of law concerning Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The order also records that delay was condoned before dismissal. The operative effect is that no ruling was given on the valuation rule itself, and the legal question remains unresolved in this order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283868</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>