<?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>Court Criticizes Lack of Due Diligence in Refractory Bricks Import Case, Citing Section 17 of Customs Act.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=58262</link>
    <description>Import of goods - refractory bricks - freely importable or restricted imports - The adjudicating authority could have contacted the other port authorities and ascertained the position - He could have moved the competent authority in DGFT and obtained clarification. Without doing so, he chose to straightaway pass the impugned order. This is clearly unfair as well as violation of Section 17 of the Customs Act. - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 05 Jun 2021 14:58:49 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Jun 2021 14:58:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=646076" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Court Criticizes Lack of Due Diligence in Refractory Bricks Import Case, Citing Section 17 of Customs Act.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=58262</link>
      <description>Import of goods - refractory bricks - freely importable or restricted imports - The adjudicating authority could have contacted the other port authorities and ascertained the position - He could have moved the competent authority in DGFT and obtained clarification. Without doing so, he chose to straightaway pass the impugned order. This is clearly unfair as well as violation of Section 17 of the Customs Act. - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 Jun 2021 14:58:49 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=58262</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>