<?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>1962 (3) TMI 130 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297279</link>
    <description>Camphor B.P. was held outside the import licence for drugs and medicines because the import schedule contained a specific, express ban on Camphor under a separate entry, and a specific prohibition prevailed over the general description covering drugs and medicines. The customs confiscation was also not amenable to certiorari: the authority acted within jurisdiction, gave notice and personal hearing, and the dispute involved construction of the schedule and licence rather than any patent error on the face of the record. The existence of statutory appeal and revision remedies further limited writ interference. The confiscation was upheld and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2021 16:49:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=653951" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (3) TMI 130 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297279</link>
      <description>Camphor B.P. was held outside the import licence for drugs and medicines because the import schedule contained a specific, express ban on Camphor under a separate entry, and a specific prohibition prevailed over the general description covering drugs and medicines. The customs confiscation was also not amenable to certiorari: the authority acted within jurisdiction, gave notice and personal hearing, and the dispute involved construction of the schedule and licence rather than any patent error on the face of the record. The existence of statutory appeal and revision remedies further limited writ interference. The confiscation was upheld and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297279</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>