<?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>2005 (8) TMI 124 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47509</link>
    <description>The court upheld the decision to confiscate the goods and rejected the petitioners&#039; claim, emphasizing that the import was illegal due to the suspension and subsequent cancellation of the license. The court highlighted that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to validate an illegal import, leading to the dismissal of the petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:56:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86028" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 124 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47509</link>
      <description>The court upheld the decision to confiscate the goods and rejected the petitioners&#039; claim, emphasizing that the import was illegal due to the suspension and subsequent cancellation of the license. The court highlighted that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to validate an illegal import, leading to the dismissal of the petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47509</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>