<?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>Fresh export authorisation supported provisional release of seized Ketamine Hydrochloride despite expiry of the original shipment authorisation.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=104103</link>
    <description>Provisional release of seized Ketamine Hydrochloride for export was warranted where a fresh export authorisation covered the same goods after the original authorisation had expired following replacement of the shipment batch. The High Court treated the delay in obtaining the fresh authorisation as technical because the goods remained unexported and the licensing authority had accepted the new authorisation as valid. Customs could not deny its effect merely because the licensing authority had not expressly authorised release of the seized goods. Union departments must maintain consistent positions on the same export transaction. The rejection of provisional release was quashed, subject to a Customs deposit, while adjudication and criminal proceedings remained unaffected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 08:27:07 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 08:27:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=925393" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Fresh export authorisation supported provisional release of seized Ketamine Hydrochloride despite expiry of the original shipment authorisation.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=104103</link>
      <description>Provisional release of seized Ketamine Hydrochloride for export was warranted where a fresh export authorisation covered the same goods after the original authorisation had expired following replacement of the shipment batch. The High Court treated the delay in obtaining the fresh authorisation as technical because the goods remained unexported and the licensing authority had accepted the new authorisation as valid. Customs could not deny its effect merely because the licensing authority had not expressly authorised release of the seized goods. Union departments must maintain consistent positions on the same export transaction. The rejection of provisional release was quashed, subject to a Customs deposit, while adjudication and criminal proceedings remained unaffected.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 08:27:07 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=104103</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>