<?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 (12) TMI 62 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42486</link>
    <description>Non-service of notice did not invalidate action under Clause 10-C of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, where the authority had taken reasonable steps to serve the licencee, the party had otherwise engaged with the authorities, and the material before the authority was sufficient to support the statutory satisfaction that the imported goods could not be utilised in the importer&#039;s own factory. The Court also noted that the importer had not informed the authorities of any change of address and had created confusion over identity. The challenge to the order directing sale of the goods and the consequential debarment from import benefits therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:17:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81015" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (12) TMI 62 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42486</link>
      <description>Non-service of notice did not invalidate action under Clause 10-C of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, where the authority had taken reasonable steps to serve the licencee, the party had otherwise engaged with the authorities, and the material before the authority was sufficient to support the statutory satisfaction that the imported goods could not be utilised in the importer&#039;s own factory. The Court also noted that the importer had not informed the authorities of any change of address and had created confusion over identity. The challenge to the order directing sale of the goods and the consequential debarment from import benefits therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42486</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>