<?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>2023 (8) TMI 1394 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311394</link>
    <description>Import notifications regulating pepper were upheld as valid exercises of foreign trade policy. The Central Government&#039;s power to regulate imports remained intact where the notifications were issued in its name and the DGFT only authenticated and published them, so competence was not undermined. The requirement to lay the notifications before Parliament was treated as directory because the statute prescribed no consequence for non-laying, so non-compliance did not invalidate them. The 6% piperine condition was not inconsistent with the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, as the imports were for export-oriented oleoresin manufacture, not domestic consumption. The classification between ordinary importers and exempted categories was held rational and proportionate, with a valid nexus to protecting the domestic market.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Dec 2023 09:44:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=736494" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 1394 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311394</link>
      <description>Import notifications regulating pepper were upheld as valid exercises of foreign trade policy. The Central Government&#039;s power to regulate imports remained intact where the notifications were issued in its name and the DGFT only authenticated and published them, so competence was not undermined. The requirement to lay the notifications before Parliament was treated as directory because the statute prescribed no consequence for non-laying, so non-compliance did not invalidate them. The 6% piperine condition was not inconsistent with the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, as the imports were for export-oriented oleoresin manufacture, not domestic consumption. The classification between ordinary importers and exempted categories was held rational and proportionate, with a valid nexus to protecting the domestic market.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311394</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>