<?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>2003 (1) TMI 108 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46491</link>
    <description>Importability is governed by the import policy and public notice in force on the date of import, and a canalising notice can validly alter earlier Open General Licence entitlement. On that basis, beef tallow imported after the relevant notice was treated as improperly imported and liable to confiscation under the Customs Act read with the Imports and Exports (Control) Act. Penalty under the Customs Act was held to operate separately from confiscation and redemption fine, so re-export or confiscation did not bar penalty. The import was therefore not protected by the earlier licence position, and both confiscation and penalty were sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85011" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 108 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46491</link>
      <description>Importability is governed by the import policy and public notice in force on the date of import, and a canalising notice can validly alter earlier Open General Licence entitlement. On that basis, beef tallow imported after the relevant notice was treated as improperly imported and liable to confiscation under the Customs Act read with the Imports and Exports (Control) Act. Penalty under the Customs Act was held to operate separately from confiscation and redemption fine, so re-export or confiscation did not bar penalty. The import was therefore not protected by the earlier licence position, and both confiscation and penalty were sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46491</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>