<?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>1990 (3) TMI 78 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42795</link>
    <description>In a public-regulatory customs context, the expression &quot;any person aggrieved&quot; was understood broadly to include the Union of India and a Government company with a vital public interest in enforcing import controls. The analysis emphasised that the Customs Act serves wider objectives such as protecting indigenous industry, conserving foreign exchange, and preventing illegal imports, so appellate standing is not confined to the immediate importer or customs authorities. The article also notes that preservation of the imported goods was treated as necessary to protect the subject-matter of the dispute, and the restraint on release was maintained pending final determination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:13:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81324" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (3) TMI 78 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42795</link>
      <description>In a public-regulatory customs context, the expression &quot;any person aggrieved&quot; was understood broadly to include the Union of India and a Government company with a vital public interest in enforcing import controls. The analysis emphasised that the Customs Act serves wider objectives such as protecting indigenous industry, conserving foreign exchange, and preventing illegal imports, so appellate standing is not confined to the immediate importer or customs authorities. The article also notes that preservation of the imported goods was treated as necessary to protect the subject-matter of the dispute, and the restraint on release was maintained pending final determination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42795</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>