<?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>1989 (1) TMI 136 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42474</link>
    <description>Where imported consignments had earlier been cleared as exempt, the customs authorities were required to permit provisional clearance rather than immediately deny release on a sudden objection. Clearance was to be allowed on payment of basic and countervailing duty at 20% ad valorem each, against a bond for the differential amount, while the Department retained liberty to issue a reasoned show cause notice within eight weeks and proceed in accordance with law. The operative point is that an exemption dispute should be pursued through notice and adjudication, not by withholding clearance where the existing material did not justify immediate refusal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2010 14:13:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81003" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (1) TMI 136 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42474</link>
      <description>Where imported consignments had earlier been cleared as exempt, the customs authorities were required to permit provisional clearance rather than immediately deny release on a sudden objection. Clearance was to be allowed on payment of basic and countervailing duty at 20% ad valorem each, against a bond for the differential amount, while the Department retained liberty to issue a reasoned show cause notice within eight weeks and proceed in accordance with law. The operative point is that an exemption dispute should be pursued through notice and adjudication, not by withholding clearance where the existing material did not justify immediate refusal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42474</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>