<?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>2025 (5) TMI 422 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770150</link>
    <description>Relaxation under paragraph 2.58 of the Foreign Trade Policy is discretionary and available only on genuine hardship, adverse trade impact or public interest; it is not a matter of right. The petitioner had missed the prescribed period for claiming MEIS benefit, and for some shipping bills export proceeds were realised beyond the policy period. The Policy Relaxation Committee distinguished between cases where realisation was within three years and those where it was not, and declined relief. Judicial review of that refusal is limited, and interference is justified only if the decision is perverse, arbitrary, capricious or contrary to the governing framework. The challenge therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 May 2025 09:18:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=820046" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 422 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770150</link>
      <description>Relaxation under paragraph 2.58 of the Foreign Trade Policy is discretionary and available only on genuine hardship, adverse trade impact or public interest; it is not a matter of right. The petitioner had missed the prescribed period for claiming MEIS benefit, and for some shipping bills export proceeds were realised beyond the policy period. The Policy Relaxation Committee distinguished between cases where realisation was within three years and those where it was not, and declined relief. Judicial review of that refusal is limited, and interference is justified only if the decision is perverse, arbitrary, capricious or contrary to the governing framework. The challenge therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770150</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>