<?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 739 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388490</link>
    <description>Ammonium nitrate was treated as a regulated explosive under the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012, so the licensing authority could refuse a P5 import licence where public safety or national security required it. The scheme distinguished a P3 licence for storage and sale from a P5 licence for import, and confined import permissions to bona fide users rather than traders. The authorities relied on the risk of diversion, misuse and untraceable end use, and the applicant&#039;s past sales to third parties not shown to be authorised users supported the finding that it was not a captive user. The refusal was upheld and no writ interference was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Nov 2019 15:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=594387" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 739 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388490</link>
      <description>Ammonium nitrate was treated as a regulated explosive under the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012, so the licensing authority could refuse a P5 import licence where public safety or national security required it. The scheme distinguished a P3 licence for storage and sale from a P5 licence for import, and confined import permissions to bona fide users rather than traders. The authorities relied on the risk of diversion, misuse and untraceable end use, and the applicant&#039;s past sales to third parties not shown to be authorised users supported the finding that it was not a captive user. The refusal was upheld and no writ interference was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388490</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>