<?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>2008 (2) TMI 402 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33893</link>
    <description>The court held that the ACMM, New Delhi, lacked jurisdiction to try the criminal complaint, and the orders issued by the ACMM were invalid. The complaint was directed to be returned to the complainant for presentation in the appropriate court in Mumbai. The Mumbai court was instructed to proceed with the complaint and decide on further actions. The parties were directed to appear before the ACMM, New Delhi, for additional instructions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72521" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 402 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33893</link>
      <description>The court held that the ACMM, New Delhi, lacked jurisdiction to try the criminal complaint, and the orders issued by the ACMM were invalid. The complaint was directed to be returned to the complainant for presentation in the appropriate court in Mumbai. The Mumbai court was instructed to proceed with the complaint and decide on further actions. The parties were directed to appear before the ACMM, New Delhi, for additional instructions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33893</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>