<?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>2021 (6) TMI 265 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408369</link>
    <description>Article 14 of the Plant Quarantine (Regulations of Import into India) Order, 2003 permits one-time relaxation of import conditions in appropriate cases, and that discretion could not be refused merely because an objection had earlier been raised. For a perishable consignment of raw cashew nuts intended for processing and re-export, the availability of fumigation through an accredited treatment provider and the existence of comparable relaxations supported consideration on merits. The apprehension of creating an adverse precedent was not treated as a valid ground to deny relaxation. The refusal was therefore unjustified, and the order was set aside with directions to allow fumigation and proceed under Article 14.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2021 14:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=646251" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (6) TMI 265 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408369</link>
      <description>Article 14 of the Plant Quarantine (Regulations of Import into India) Order, 2003 permits one-time relaxation of import conditions in appropriate cases, and that discretion could not be refused merely because an objection had earlier been raised. For a perishable consignment of raw cashew nuts intended for processing and re-export, the availability of fumigation through an accredited treatment provider and the existence of comparable relaxations supported consideration on merits. The apprehension of creating an adverse precedent was not treated as a valid ground to deny relaxation. The refusal was therefore unjustified, and the order was set aside with directions to allow fumigation and proceed under Article 14.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408369</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>