<?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 (2) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43472</link>
    <description>Goods imported duty-free under an exemption notification were not subject to any stated restriction requiring domestic consumption or prohibiting export. The reference to import for home consumption was treated as a procedural description of the import entry, not a restriction on later use or re-export. Since the goods were not shown to fall within Schedule I of the Exports (Control) Order, and no other law barring export was identified, export of the respirator system was permissible. The customs authorities were therefore required to endorse the shipping bill for export, and the reasoning also relied on the constitutional protection of trade where no export prohibition existed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2010 12:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82001" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (2) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43472</link>
      <description>Goods imported duty-free under an exemption notification were not subject to any stated restriction requiring domestic consumption or prohibiting export. The reference to import for home consumption was treated as a procedural description of the import entry, not a restriction on later use or re-export. Since the goods were not shown to fall within Schedule I of the Exports (Control) Order, and no other law barring export was identified, export of the respirator system was permissible. The customs authorities were therefore required to endorse the shipping bill for export, and the reasoning also relied on the constitutional protection of trade where no export prohibition existed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43472</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>