<?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>1985 (4) TMI 72 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41585</link>
    <description>White cement and ordinary portland cement were treated as distinct commercial commodities under the governing import-control framework. Applying the commercial parlance test, and relying on the Imported Cement (Control) Order, Indian Standards Institution materials and the Government press note, the Court held that trade understanding, use and composition showed separate articles. On that basis, Customs could not treat white cement as a prohibited or canalised import of ordinary cement, and the contrary refusal to clear the goods was held unreasonable, illegal and without jurisdiction. The writ petition succeeded, and the confiscatory directions and adjudication were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 15:53:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80115" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (4) TMI 72 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41585</link>
      <description>White cement and ordinary portland cement were treated as distinct commercial commodities under the governing import-control framework. Applying the commercial parlance test, and relying on the Imported Cement (Control) Order, Indian Standards Institution materials and the Government press note, the Court held that trade understanding, use and composition showed separate articles. On that basis, Customs could not treat white cement as a prohibited or canalised import of ordinary cement, and the contrary refusal to clear the goods was held unreasonable, illegal and without jurisdiction. The writ petition succeeded, and the confiscatory directions and adjudication were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41585</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>