<?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 560 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396185</link>
    <description>The court directed the respondent to decide on the petitioner&#039;s request for provisional release of seized gold within one month, emphasizing that the Covid-19 lockdown extension for adjudication proceedings did not apply to provisional release under Section 110(a) of the Customs Act 1962. The court disposed of the writ petition accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:29:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=615853" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (6) TMI 560 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396185</link>
      <description>The court directed the respondent to decide on the petitioner&#039;s request for provisional release of seized gold within one month, emphasizing that the Covid-19 lockdown extension for adjudication proceedings did not apply to provisional release under Section 110(a) of the Customs Act 1962. The court disposed of the writ petition accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396185</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>