<?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>1993 (7) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43669</link>
    <description>Customs inaction on the petitioners&#039; reply to the query memo, together with the absence of a return in the writ proceedings, supported grant of relief under Article 226. The Court expressly declined to express any view on the merits and proceeded on the basis of the existing interim arrangement under which the goods had already been cleared. On that footing, the petitioners were entitled to discharge of the bank guarantee and bond.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Jun 2010 13:18:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82198" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (7) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43669</link>
      <description>Customs inaction on the petitioners&#039; reply to the query memo, together with the absence of a return in the writ proceedings, supported grant of relief under Article 226. The Court expressly declined to express any view on the merits and proceeded on the basis of the existing interim arrangement under which the goods had already been cleared. On that footing, the petitioners were entitled to discharge of the bank guarantee and bond.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43669</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>