<?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>1991 (5) TMI 195 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94154</link>
    <description>Silver bullion found in a specified area without a transport voucher, bill or invoice was treated as lacking proof of lawful acquisition, making the violation substantive rather than technical. On that basis, confiscation under Chapter IV-B of the Customs Act was upheld without requiring proof of an actual attempt to export, and the redemption fine was left undisturbed. The same unlawful possession and handling of the bullion were also treated as sufficient to support penal liability. The objections that one appellant was absent at the search and that another was not a working partner did not displace responsibility arising from control of the shop premises during the relevant period, so the penalties were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Nov 2011 14:59:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131214" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (5) TMI 195 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94154</link>
      <description>Silver bullion found in a specified area without a transport voucher, bill or invoice was treated as lacking proof of lawful acquisition, making the violation substantive rather than technical. On that basis, confiscation under Chapter IV-B of the Customs Act was upheld without requiring proof of an actual attempt to export, and the redemption fine was left undisturbed. The same unlawful possession and handling of the bullion were also treated as sufficient to support penal liability. The objections that one appellant was absent at the search and that another was not a working partner did not displace responsibility arising from control of the shop premises during the relevant period, so the penalties were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94154</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>