<?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>1996 (3) TMI 529 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170928</link>
    <description>A complaint for attempted export of antiquities could not proceed under the Customs Act because the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 provided a special, self-contained prosecution scheme. Coins over 100 years old were treated as antiquities, export without authority was prohibited, and section 24 required a final determination by the Director General or an authorised officer before prosecution. The materials showed only a prima facie view by a Superintendent, not the final statutory determination. Customs provisions could apply only for confiscation and ancillary consequences, so they could not be used to bypass the mandatory special procedure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2015 16:04:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=388980" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 529 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170928</link>
      <description>A complaint for attempted export of antiquities could not proceed under the Customs Act because the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 provided a special, self-contained prosecution scheme. Coins over 100 years old were treated as antiquities, export without authority was prohibited, and section 24 required a final determination by the Director General or an authorised officer before prosecution. The materials showed only a prima facie view by a Superintendent, not the final statutory determination. Customs provisions could apply only for confiscation and ancillary consequences, so they could not be used to bypass the mandatory special procedure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170928</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>