<?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 (12) TMI 455 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431338</link>
    <description>The court stayed the bank guarantee invocation pending a decision by the DGFT and directed that the pending representation be consolidated with the previous writ petition for a decision by January 31, 2023. The court emphasized that the bank guarantee should not be invoked without two weeks&#039; notice to the petitioner and provided a timeline for further actions in case of representation rejection, safeguarding the petitioner&#039;s rights during the process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Dec 2022 11:15:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=698244" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (12) TMI 455 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431338</link>
      <description>The court stayed the bank guarantee invocation pending a decision by the DGFT and directed that the pending representation be consolidated with the previous writ petition for a decision by January 31, 2023. The court emphasized that the bank guarantee should not be invoked without two weeks&#039; notice to the petitioner and provided a timeline for further actions in case of representation rejection, safeguarding the petitioner&#039;s rights during the process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431338</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>