<?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 (6) TMI 140 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395765</link>
    <description>Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 vests power to frame and amend the Foreign Trade Policy in the Central Government, while the DGFT&#039;s role is limited to advising and implementing that policy. A public notice issued under the Handbook of Procedures cannot be used to alter the substantive policy framework, even if it is issued under the procedure-setting power in Paragraph 1.03 of FTP 2015-2020. On that basis, the exclusion of gold medallions, coins, and fully mechanised jewellery from advance authorisation was treated as a substantive policy change, not a procedural clarification, and the notice was liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=614618" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (6) TMI 140 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395765</link>
      <description>Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 vests power to frame and amend the Foreign Trade Policy in the Central Government, while the DGFT&#039;s role is limited to advising and implementing that policy. A public notice issued under the Handbook of Procedures cannot be used to alter the substantive policy framework, even if it is issued under the procedure-setting power in Paragraph 1.03 of FTP 2015-2020. On that basis, the exclusion of gold medallions, coins, and fully mechanised jewellery from advance authorisation was treated as a substantive policy change, not a procedural clarification, and the notice was liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395765</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>