<?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 (7) TMI 99 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41730</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, directing the Customs Authorities to issue the remaining detention certificates promptly for all bills of entry within four weeks from the judgment date. The court held that the detention certificate should cover the period from the arrival of goods in May 1980 until the clearance date in August 1981 for all three bills of entry. The court criticized the Department&#039;s delay in handling the case and emphasized that the inability to trace papers cannot indefinitely postpone the proceedings. The Department&#039;s submission that the goods were not examined due to the petitioners taking back the bills of entries was dismissed for lack of evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Jun 2010 16:46:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80259" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (7) TMI 99 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41730</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, directing the Customs Authorities to issue the remaining detention certificates promptly for all bills of entry within four weeks from the judgment date. The court held that the detention certificate should cover the period from the arrival of goods in May 1980 until the clearance date in August 1981 for all three bills of entry. The court criticized the Department&#039;s delay in handling the case and emphasized that the inability to trace papers cannot indefinitely postpone the proceedings. The Department&#039;s submission that the goods were not examined due to the petitioners taking back the bills of entries was dismissed for lack of evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41730</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>