<?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>1984 (9) TMI 64 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41654</link>
    <description>Under the Customs Act, a foreign vessel is imported once brought into India&#039;s territorial waters, and later intended scrapping does not undo that import. The canalising agency regime for old ships did not apply to vessels already imported and registered for plying, so MSTC clearance and no objection certificates could not be imposed as a condition for approval under Section 42(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. The writ court could review the legality of statutory conditions, but it could not mandate fresh advertisements or fix minimum sale prices, as those matters lay with the competent authority. Locus standi was upheld because the appellant had subsisting purchase offers and a sufficient interest in the sale process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:45:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80184" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (9) TMI 64 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41654</link>
      <description>Under the Customs Act, a foreign vessel is imported once brought into India&#039;s territorial waters, and later intended scrapping does not undo that import. The canalising agency regime for old ships did not apply to vessels already imported and registered for plying, so MSTC clearance and no objection certificates could not be imposed as a condition for approval under Section 42(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. The writ court could review the legality of statutory conditions, but it could not mandate fresh advertisements or fix minimum sale prices, as those matters lay with the competent authority. Locus standi was upheld because the appellant had subsisting purchase offers and a sufficient interest in the sale process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41654</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>