<?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 (10) TMI 597 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399623</link>
    <description>Imported used rubber tyres were treated as restricted goods rather than prohibited goods, so provisional release pending adjudication was permissible on appropriate conditions. The court noted that the Revenue had not specifically invoked the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, and no proceedings had been initiated under those Rules for immediate re-export. It applied the distinction between prohibited and restricted imports, holding that conditional provisional release could protect both sides without prejudging the merits. The challenge to the single judge&#039;s direction therefore failed, and the release order remained undisturbed pending adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2020 13:55:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=625183" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (10) TMI 597 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399623</link>
      <description>Imported used rubber tyres were treated as restricted goods rather than prohibited goods, so provisional release pending adjudication was permissible on appropriate conditions. The court noted that the Revenue had not specifically invoked the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, and no proceedings had been initiated under those Rules for immediate re-export. It applied the distinction between prohibited and restricted imports, holding that conditional provisional release could protect both sides without prejudging the merits. The challenge to the single judge&#039;s direction therefore failed, and the release order remained undisturbed pending adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399623</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>