<?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 (8) TMI 178 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775991</link>
    <description>The HC dismissed the petition challenging the allocation of the Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) under the India-UAE CEPA for FY 2025-26. The court held that allocation of the TRQ is a policy decision of the government and the DGFT&#039;s role is to allocate quotas based on applications received and established policy parameters, including turnover criteria. Given the limited quota and numerous applications, the DGFT excluded applicants below the prescribed turnover threshold in line with notifications and regulatory precedent. The HC found no grounds to interfere under Article 226, affirming that the allocation process followed the relevant government notifications and policy guidelines.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2025 08:28:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=840643" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 178 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775991</link>
      <description>The HC dismissed the petition challenging the allocation of the Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) under the India-UAE CEPA for FY 2025-26. The court held that allocation of the TRQ is a policy decision of the government and the DGFT&#039;s role is to allocate quotas based on applications received and established policy parameters, including turnover criteria. Given the limited quota and numerous applications, the DGFT excluded applicants below the prescribed turnover threshold in line with notifications and regulatory precedent. The HC found no grounds to interfere under Article 226, affirming that the allocation process followed the relevant government notifications and policy guidelines.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775991</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>