<?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 (11) TMI 738 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388489</link>
    <description>The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing the customs authorities to extend the benefit of Customs Notification No.104/2009 to the petitioner for the five Bills of Entry in question. The Court mandated compliance within four weeks, reinforcing the retrospective application of the Commissioner&#039;s power to permit importation through non-notified ports and adherence to its previous directive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2020 12:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=594372" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 738 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388489</link>
      <description>The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing the customs authorities to extend the benefit of Customs Notification No.104/2009 to the petitioner for the five Bills of Entry in question. The Court mandated compliance within four weeks, reinforcing the retrospective application of the Commissioner&#039;s power to permit importation through non-notified ports and adherence to its previous directive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388489</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>