<?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>1986 (2) TMI 57 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41357</link>
    <description>Import duty on betelnuts under the Sea Customs Act turned on whether the applicable rate was fixed by presentation of the bill of entry or by landing of the goods. The statutory scheme was read harmoniously, but the deeming fiction in the explanation to Section 37 was confined to its terms and could not override the requirement that duty attach on landing where the bill of entry had been presented earlier and retained by customs. On the stated facts, the goods were landed after the duty reduction, so the reduced rate applied and excess duty was refundable. A dissenting view would have treated the earlier presentation date as controlling and applied the higher rate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Feb 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79888" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (2) TMI 57 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41357</link>
      <description>Import duty on betelnuts under the Sea Customs Act turned on whether the applicable rate was fixed by presentation of the bill of entry or by landing of the goods. The statutory scheme was read harmoniously, but the deeming fiction in the explanation to Section 37 was confined to its terms and could not override the requirement that duty attach on landing where the bill of entry had been presented earlier and retained by customs. On the stated facts, the goods were landed after the duty reduction, so the reduced rate applied and excess duty was refundable. A dissenting view would have treated the earlier presentation date as controlling and applied the higher rate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Feb 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41357</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>