<?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>1990 (8) TMI 267 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80827</link>
    <description>The six-month limitation for issuing a seizure-related show cause notice under the Customs Act was mandatory, and an extension beyond that period was valid only where exceptional circumstances justified immediate extension and the prescribed post-decisional procedure was followed. Because the initial extension order was made without showing such grounds or complying with the required procedure, the notice and the ensuing confiscation and penalty proceedings were void. The separate allegation of contravention under the import control law was not sustained, as the invalid notice undermined the foundation of the adjudication and the goods were not properly examined against the vouchers and bills produced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2011 19:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117972" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (8) TMI 267 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80827</link>
      <description>The six-month limitation for issuing a seizure-related show cause notice under the Customs Act was mandatory, and an extension beyond that period was valid only where exceptional circumstances justified immediate extension and the prescribed post-decisional procedure was followed. Because the initial extension order was made without showing such grounds or complying with the required procedure, the notice and the ensuing confiscation and penalty proceedings were void. The separate allegation of contravention under the import control law was not sustained, as the invalid notice undermined the foundation of the adjudication and the goods were not properly examined against the vouchers and bills produced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80827</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>