<?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>2002 (7) TMI 106 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46423</link>
    <description>Entitlement to the higher DEPB export incentive depended on completion of the prescribed customs procedure before the policy change took effect. Physical delivery of goods into the customs area was not enough where arrival had not been recorded in the EDI system and clubbing permission had not yet been obtained for the consolidated shipment. The analysis states that the protective policy and circular applied only after the required procedural conditions for examination, clearance and arrival recording were satisfied, so the later reduced rate applied when those conditions were completed only on 1 April 2000. It also notes that legitimate expectation could not override non-compliance with the prescribed export procedure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:12:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84944" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (7) TMI 106 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46423</link>
      <description>Entitlement to the higher DEPB export incentive depended on completion of the prescribed customs procedure before the policy change took effect. Physical delivery of goods into the customs area was not enough where arrival had not been recorded in the EDI system and clubbing permission had not yet been obtained for the consolidated shipment. The analysis states that the protective policy and circular applied only after the required procedural conditions for examination, clearance and arrival recording were satisfied, so the later reduced rate applied when those conditions were completed only on 1 April 2000. It also notes that legitimate expectation could not override non-compliance with the prescribed export procedure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46423</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>