<?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 (12) TMI 101 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47133</link>
    <description>Oxytetracycline hydrochloride fell within Entry 80 of Appendix 2B of the Import and Export Policy for 1988-91 because the policy treated drugs as including their salts, esters and complexes; as the hydrochloride was the salt of oxytetracycline, it was covered by the restriction. Import under the Open General Licence was unavailable because the OGL permitted raw materials only if they were not covered by Appendices 2, 3, 5 or 8, and the policy exception could not override that exclusion. The additional licence also did not assist, since the relevant entry similarly excluded goods covered by Appendix 2B. Confiscation under customs law was therefore justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85652" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (12) TMI 101 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47133</link>
      <description>Oxytetracycline hydrochloride fell within Entry 80 of Appendix 2B of the Import and Export Policy for 1988-91 because the policy treated drugs as including their salts, esters and complexes; as the hydrochloride was the salt of oxytetracycline, it was covered by the restriction. Import under the Open General Licence was unavailable because the OGL permitted raw materials only if they were not covered by Appendices 2, 3, 5 or 8, and the policy exception could not override that exclusion. The additional licence also did not assist, since the relevant entry similarly excluded goods covered by Appendix 2B. Confiscation under customs law was therefore justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47133</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>