<?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 (10) TMI 555 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779759</link>
    <description>For air imports, the shipment date under Paragraph 9.11 of the Handbook of Procedure 2015-20 is the date shown on the Airway Bill, not the later date when the goods physically leave the foreign airport. Applying that rule, a notification effective from 18.10.2017 was held inapplicable where the Airway Bill was dated 17.10.2017. An observation on the alleged free importability of gold before 18.12.2019 was treated as beyond the scope of the dispute and was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2025 08:53:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=857987" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 555 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779759</link>
      <description>For air imports, the shipment date under Paragraph 9.11 of the Handbook of Procedure 2015-20 is the date shown on the Airway Bill, not the later date when the goods physically leave the foreign airport. Applying that rule, a notification effective from 18.10.2017 was held inapplicable where the Airway Bill was dated 17.10.2017. An observation on the alleged free importability of gold before 18.12.2019 was treated as beyond the scope of the dispute and was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779759</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>