<?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>2022 (11) TMI 1076 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430652</link>
    <description>The Foreign Trade Policy treated the plastics sector as eligible for the Status Holder Incentive Scrip, and a clarification could not introduce a new restriction where the policy text was clear. The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 places policy formulation and amendment with the Central Government under Section 5, while the Director General of Foreign Trade under Section 6 may advise on and implement the policy, not rewrite it by interpretation. As the exporter belonged to the plastics sector covered by the policy, the rejection of the incentive entitlement was unsustainable and the petitioner was entitled to the benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Feb 2023 15:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=696720" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (11) TMI 1076 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430652</link>
      <description>The Foreign Trade Policy treated the plastics sector as eligible for the Status Holder Incentive Scrip, and a clarification could not introduce a new restriction where the policy text was clear. The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 places policy formulation and amendment with the Central Government under Section 5, while the Director General of Foreign Trade under Section 6 may advise on and implement the policy, not rewrite it by interpretation. As the exporter belonged to the plastics sector covered by the policy, the rejection of the incentive entitlement was unsustainable and the petitioner was entitled to the benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430652</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>