<?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>2007 (8) TMI 355 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48105</link>
    <description>The Tribunal&#039;s setting aside of suspension of a customs house agent licence under the 2004 Regulations was upheld because it acted within jurisdiction on the material before it and granted liberty to proceed with the regular enquiry. Appellate interference was unwarranted in the absence of patent illegality in the Tribunal&#039;s order. No substantial question of law was found to arise, so the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Aug 2010 16:24:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86617" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (8) TMI 355 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48105</link>
      <description>The Tribunal&#039;s setting aside of suspension of a customs house agent licence under the 2004 Regulations was upheld because it acted within jurisdiction on the material before it and granted liberty to proceed with the regular enquiry. Appellate interference was unwarranted in the absence of patent illegality in the Tribunal&#039;s order. No substantial question of law was found to arise, so the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48105</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>