<?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 (3) TMI 533 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393389</link>
    <description>Mandatory export-document requirements under the Foreign Trade Policy and Handbook of Procedure required endorsement of shipping or supply documents with authorization particulars and submission of prescribed proof to discharge export obligation. Supplies to SEZ units also had to be supported by a Bill of Export, with the endorsed ARE-1 treated as proof of export. The relaxation power under paragraph 2.5 of the Foreign Trade Policy was confined to genuine hardship, adverse trade impact, or public interest, and could not be used to excuse mere laxity or non-vigilant compliance. On these facts, the absence of Bills of Export and the insufficiency of substituted materials meant the request for condonation and discharge-related benefits was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2020 18:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=606828" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (3) TMI 533 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393389</link>
      <description>Mandatory export-document requirements under the Foreign Trade Policy and Handbook of Procedure required endorsement of shipping or supply documents with authorization particulars and submission of prescribed proof to discharge export obligation. Supplies to SEZ units also had to be supported by a Bill of Export, with the endorsed ARE-1 treated as proof of export. The relaxation power under paragraph 2.5 of the Foreign Trade Policy was confined to genuine hardship, adverse trade impact, or public interest, and could not be used to excuse mere laxity or non-vigilant compliance. On these facts, the absence of Bills of Export and the insufficiency of substituted materials meant the request for condonation and discharge-related benefits was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393389</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>