<?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>1964 (8) TMI 40 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98167</link>
    <description>The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 was treated as creating strict liability for bringing gold into India in breach of the Reserve Bank permission regime, so mens rea was not essential where the statutory scheme placed the burden of proving permission on the accused. A general RBI notification, once duly published in the Official Gazette, was enforceable without proof of actual knowledge, as ignorance of law was no excuse and no personal notice was required. Gold carried by a passenger was also held to fall within the declaration requirement where the notification required manifest entry, because a narrow reading would defeat the purpose of the control scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135224" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (8) TMI 40 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98167</link>
      <description>The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 was treated as creating strict liability for bringing gold into India in breach of the Reserve Bank permission regime, so mens rea was not essential where the statutory scheme placed the burden of proving permission on the accused. A general RBI notification, once duly published in the Official Gazette, was enforceable without proof of actual knowledge, as ignorance of law was no excuse and no personal notice was required. Gold carried by a passenger was also held to fall within the declaration requirement where the notification required manifest entry, because a narrow reading would defeat the purpose of the control scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98167</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>