<?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>2026 (5) TMI 1689 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792486</link>
    <description>Rule 18 permits anti-dumping duty to be imposed only within three months from publication of the final findings under Rule 17. Because no notification was issued within that statutory period, the Central Government could no longer act on the impugned final findings. The High Court therefore treated the challenge as infructuous and disposed of the writ petition, as the statutory window for issuing a notification had already closed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 08:59:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=904374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 1689 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792486</link>
      <description>Rule 18 permits anti-dumping duty to be imposed only within three months from publication of the final findings under Rule 17. Because no notification was issued within that statutory period, the Central Government could no longer act on the impugned final findings. The High Court therefore treated the challenge as infructuous and disposed of the writ petition, as the statutory window for issuing a notification had already closed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792486</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>