<?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>1966 (7) TMI 76 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288906</link>
    <description>Motor vehicle parts imported under a licence covering parts and accessories could not be treated as unauthorised imports merely because separate consignments, when assembled, would make complete mopeds in knocked down condition. The Customs authorities were held to have gone beyond the licence and the governing import control entry by imposing an added restriction not found in the statutory scheme, so the confiscation, fines and penalties were unlawful. The recovery suit was also held maintainable and within limitation as a claim for money received for the plaintiffs&#039; use, because the sums paid under the invalid orders belonged in justice to the plaintiffs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2020 19:19:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=616703" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (7) TMI 76 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288906</link>
      <description>Motor vehicle parts imported under a licence covering parts and accessories could not be treated as unauthorised imports merely because separate consignments, when assembled, would make complete mopeds in knocked down condition. The Customs authorities were held to have gone beyond the licence and the governing import control entry by imposing an added restriction not found in the statutory scheme, so the confiscation, fines and penalties were unlawful. The recovery suit was also held maintainable and within limitation as a claim for money received for the plaintiffs&#039; use, because the sums paid under the invalid orders belonged in justice to the plaintiffs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288906</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>