Proceeds of crime and property equivalent in value: failure to explain lawful source sustains attachment; lack of required notice can vitiate confirma...
Mechanical approval without recorded reasons and failure to communicate any extension before expiry of the six-month period meant the seized cash could not lawfully be retained under the Customs Act; retention after that period was therefore without jurisdiction and the petitioners were entitled to return of the cash. Transfer of the cash to the income tax authorities during pendency of the writ proceedings, after customs had already lost jurisdiction, was treated as overreaching the court, justifying costs, though the amount was reduced after apology and an assurance of future compliance.
Mechanical approval without recorded reasons and failure to communicate any extension before expiry of the six-month period meant the seized cash could not lawfully be retained under the Customs Act; retention after that period was therefore without jurisdiction and the petitioners were entitled to return of the cash. Transfer of the cash to the income tax authorities during pendency of the writ proceedings, after customs had already lost jurisdiction, was treated as overreaching the court, justifying costs, though the amount was reduced after apology and an assurance of future compliance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
