<?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>1998 (7) TMI 104 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45042</link>
    <description>Retention of an encashed bond amount was unlawful where the competent authorities had found no misutilisation of imported goods and treated the export shortfall as technical and excusable. The importer had taken goods under a duty exemption obligation linked to export performance, and nearly the entire export obligation was later fulfilled. On those findings, continued retention of the bond amount had no justification, and refund with interest was directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 10:36:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83571" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 104 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45042</link>
      <description>Retention of an encashed bond amount was unlawful where the competent authorities had found no misutilisation of imported goods and treated the export shortfall as technical and excusable. The importer had taken goods under a duty exemption obligation linked to export performance, and nearly the entire export obligation was later fulfilled. On those findings, continued retention of the bond amount had no justification, and refund with interest was directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45042</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>