<?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>2020 (2) TMI 856 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392412</link>
    <description>A policy governing registration of sales contracts for importing poppy seeds from Turkey under a first-come-first-served mechanism was challenged under Article 14. The HC held that import regulation is subject to limited judicial review in economic and commercial matters, and a policy will be interfered with only if it is manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, or lacks a rational nexus with its object. Although first-come-first-served allocation may raise fairness concerns and warrant greater transparency, the materials did not justify striking down the policy. No constitutional invalidity was declared, though the respondents were advised to consider a fairer and more transparent quota-allotment mechanism.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2020 15:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=604519" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 856 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392412</link>
      <description>A policy governing registration of sales contracts for importing poppy seeds from Turkey under a first-come-first-served mechanism was challenged under Article 14. The HC held that import regulation is subject to limited judicial review in economic and commercial matters, and a policy will be interfered with only if it is manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, or lacks a rational nexus with its object. Although first-come-first-served allocation may raise fairness concerns and warrant greater transparency, the materials did not justify striking down the policy. No constitutional invalidity was declared, though the respondents were advised to consider a fairer and more transparent quota-allotment mechanism.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392412</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>