<?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>2010 (11) TMI 335 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204824</link>
    <description>Where a customs adjudication order is appealable before the specialised appellate forum, writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be invoked to bypass the statutory remedy. The court treated the challenge as an attempt to avoid the available appeal and upheld refusal to entertain the writ on that basis. It also held that denial of cross-examination of the Clearing House Agent and investigating officers did not violate natural justice because the importer had given an un-retracted voluntary statement admitting misdeclaration, and the case was supported by documentary and laboratory evidence rather than testimony requiring cross-examination. The writ petition dismissal was therefore upheld, leaving the appellant to pursue the statutory appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2023 14:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178352" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 335 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204824</link>
      <description>Where a customs adjudication order is appealable before the specialised appellate forum, writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be invoked to bypass the statutory remedy. The court treated the challenge as an attempt to avoid the available appeal and upheld refusal to entertain the writ on that basis. It also held that denial of cross-examination of the Clearing House Agent and investigating officers did not violate natural justice because the importer had given an un-retracted voluntary statement admitting misdeclaration, and the case was supported by documentary and laboratory evidence rather than testimony requiring cross-examination. The writ petition dismissal was therefore upheld, leaving the appellant to pursue the statutory appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204824</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>