<?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>1985 (3) TMI 292 - CEGAT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167521</link>
    <description>Undeclared currency found on a vessel and omitted from the vessel&#039;s currency declaration was treated as prohibited goods under the foreign exchange law and therefore liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, because the explanation that it belonged to passengers was unsupported and the records were not reliably maintained. Penalties were also sustained against the Master, the Chief Purser and other crew members because the person in charge was responsible for the manifest, the declaration made on the Master&#039;s authority was incorrect, and the remaining officers were found to have assisted in removing and dealing with currency known to be liable to confiscation. The penalties were not considered excessive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2014 11:16:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=371902" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (3) TMI 292 - CEGAT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167521</link>
      <description>Undeclared currency found on a vessel and omitted from the vessel&#039;s currency declaration was treated as prohibited goods under the foreign exchange law and therefore liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, because the explanation that it belonged to passengers was unsupported and the records were not reliably maintained. Penalties were also sustained against the Master, the Chief Purser and other crew members because the person in charge was responsible for the manifest, the declaration made on the Master&#039;s authority was incorrect, and the remaining officers were found to have assisted in removing and dealing with currency known to be liable to confiscation. The penalties were not considered excessive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167521</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>