<?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 (10) TMI 1268 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414216</link>
    <description>The High Court clarified that under section 110(5) of the Customs Act, a provisional attachment order automatically expires after one year, even with extensions. The Court directed Customs to inform the petitioner&#039;s bank that the attachment order had lapsed, allowing account operation. The writ petition was granted without costs, but the ruling did not preclude legal action against the petitioner for any legal breaches.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2022 12:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=659934" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (10) TMI 1268 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414216</link>
      <description>The High Court clarified that under section 110(5) of the Customs Act, a provisional attachment order automatically expires after one year, even with extensions. The Court directed Customs to inform the petitioner&#039;s bank that the attachment order had lapsed, allowing account operation. The writ petition was granted without costs, but the ruling did not preclude legal action against the petitioner for any legal breaches.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414216</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>