<?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>2000 (8) TMI 144 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49930</link>
    <description>A retrospective amendment to an import licence can validate imports made before the amendment where the competent licensing authority has relaxed the relevant import condition under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the import policy. Customs authorities cannot disregard the amended licence on the ground of policy inconsistency, because the licensing function and customs adjudication operate in distinct spheres. The view that such an amendment can take effect only prospectively was rejected, and the analogy with cancellation of a licence was held inapplicable. On that basis, the amended licence covered the goods and confiscation under section 111(d) and penalty under section 112 were not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 14:39:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88410" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 144 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49930</link>
      <description>A retrospective amendment to an import licence can validate imports made before the amendment where the competent licensing authority has relaxed the relevant import condition under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the import policy. Customs authorities cannot disregard the amended licence on the ground of policy inconsistency, because the licensing function and customs adjudication operate in distinct spheres. The view that such an amendment can take effect only prospectively was rejected, and the analogy with cancellation of a licence was held inapplicable. On that basis, the amended licence covered the goods and confiscation under section 111(d) and penalty under section 112 were not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49930</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>