<?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 (5) TMI 1082 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314020</link>
    <description>The HC directed maintaining the status quo on the bank guarantee invocation related to EPCG authorizations, ultimately reissuing the demand draft in favor of respondents for two years. The DGFT was instructed to consider extending EPCG authorizations, impacted by COVID-19, with a decision by July 31, 2021. The court disposed of the petition, emphasizing no merits examination, and required a two-week notice for any bank guarantee invocation before the decision. The digitally signed order on the court&#039;s website was deemed the certified copy for compliance. The judgment safeguarded the petitioner&#039;s rights and ensured a fair decision-making process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 May 2024 21:31:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=752983" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (5) TMI 1082 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314020</link>
      <description>The HC directed maintaining the status quo on the bank guarantee invocation related to EPCG authorizations, ultimately reissuing the demand draft in favor of respondents for two years. The DGFT was instructed to consider extending EPCG authorizations, impacted by COVID-19, with a decision by July 31, 2021. The court disposed of the petition, emphasizing no merits examination, and required a two-week notice for any bank guarantee invocation before the decision. The digitally signed order on the court&#039;s website was deemed the certified copy for compliance. The judgment safeguarded the petitioner&#039;s rights and ensured a fair decision-making process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314020</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>