<?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>2004 (4) TMI 87 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47046</link>
    <description>The court ordered the petitioner to deposit the demanded amount with interest within 15 days to prevent the auction of goods at Moradabad. The court granted a stay on the confirmation of sales for the petitioner&#039;s goods auctioned on 22-4-2004 but clarified that goods auctioned due to violations other than the impugned order wouldn&#039;t benefit from the stay. The petitioner was advised to use statutory remedies to challenge the order confirming the custom duty demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:20:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85566" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (4) TMI 87 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47046</link>
      <description>The court ordered the petitioner to deposit the demanded amount with interest within 15 days to prevent the auction of goods at Moradabad. The court granted a stay on the confirmation of sales for the petitioner&#039;s goods auctioned on 22-4-2004 but clarified that goods auctioned due to violations other than the impugned order wouldn&#039;t benefit from the stay. The petitioner was advised to use statutory remedies to challenge the order confirming the custom duty demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47046</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>