<?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 (12) TMI 1149 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390266</link>
    <description>The amendment to Rule 45 excluding Kolkata as a designated import place for insecticides was found arbitrary, unreasonable and ultra vires the Insecticides Act, 1968. Although Section 36(2)(d) permits prescription of import places, that delegated power remained subject to statutory safeguards and reasonableness; the asserted aims of preventing illegal imports and improving quality control were unsupported by concrete material. Existing controls under the Act already regulated registration, import and quality, and no adequate basis was shown for dispensing with consultation under Section 36(1). The notification&#039;s discriminatory effect on the Eastern and North-Eastern regions therefore rendered it invalid, restoring the pre-amendment import regime for Kolkata.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2020 16:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=598599" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 1149 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390266</link>
      <description>The amendment to Rule 45 excluding Kolkata as a designated import place for insecticides was found arbitrary, unreasonable and ultra vires the Insecticides Act, 1968. Although Section 36(2)(d) permits prescription of import places, that delegated power remained subject to statutory safeguards and reasonableness; the asserted aims of preventing illegal imports and improving quality control were unsupported by concrete material. Existing controls under the Act already regulated registration, import and quality, and no adequate basis was shown for dispensing with consultation under Section 36(1). The notification&#039;s discriminatory effect on the Eastern and North-Eastern regions therefore rendered it invalid, restoring the pre-amendment import regime for Kolkata.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390266</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>