https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166165 Quasi-judicial customs confiscation and penalty orders passed under an intra vires fiscal regime were held not amenable to challenge under Article 32 merely because the authorities allegedly misconstrued paragraph 6 of S.R.O. 3315. Applying Ujjambai, the Court held that an erroneous construction by an authority acting within jurisdiction does not, by itself, amount to a breach of fundamental rights; the remedy is unavailable unless there is an absence of jurisdiction or a challenge to vires. The majority found the customs authorities had jurisdiction under the Sea Customs Act as extended to Pondicherry, so the petition failed. A dissent would have treated the authorities as lacking jurisdiction on the assumed facts. en-us Thu, 27 Sep 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Aug 2014 17:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166165 Quasi-judicial customs confiscation and penalty orders passed under an intra vires fiscal regime were held not amenable to challenge under Article 32 merely because the authorities allegedly misconstrued paragraph 6 of S.R.O. 3315. Applying Ujjambai, the Court held that an erroneous construction by an authority acting within jurisdiction does not, by itself, amount to a breach of fundamental rights; the remedy is unavailable unless there is an absence of jurisdiction or a challenge to vires. The majority found the customs authorities had jurisdiction under the Sea Customs Act as extended to Pondicherry, so the petition failed. A dissent would have treated the authorities as lacking jurisdiction on the assumed facts. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 27 Sep 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166165