https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104043 A later seizure of currency was held valid where an earlier seizure had been set aside only on a technical ground and the prior order had expressly reserved liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The Court rejected the argument that the later seizure was an impermissible re-seizure, holding that it followed return of the currency and was lawful further action. It also held that section 38 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was satisfied because the material already available from the earlier seizure and surrounding facts was sufficient to form reason to believe that the currency and documents were relevant to investigation. The challenge failed and the seizure was upheld. en-us Tue, 12 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:25:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104043 A later seizure of currency was held valid where an earlier seizure had been set aside only on a technical ground and the prior order had expressly reserved liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The Court rejected the argument that the later seizure was an impermissible re-seizure, holding that it followed return of the currency and was lawful further action. It also held that section 38 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was satisfied because the material already available from the earlier seizure and surrounding facts was sufficient to form reason to believe that the currency and documents were relevant to investigation. The challenge failed and the seizure was upheld. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 12 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104043