<?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>2009 (11) TMI 881 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171511</link>
    <description>Preventive detention under COFEPOSA can be justified on a solitary smuggling incident only where the material objectively supports a real inference of future prejudicial activity. On the facts noted, there was only one alleged incident of foreign-currency smuggling, with no past antecedents or reliable material showing an organized pattern or real likelihood of repetition, so detention was not sustainable. Retention of the detenu&#039;s passport also substantially removed the basis for fearing further overseas smuggling, making the apprehension speculative. The commentary states that, without adequate material and where the stated risk is effectively foreclosed, preventive detention cannot stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 May 2016 12:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=391044" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 881 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171511</link>
      <description>Preventive detention under COFEPOSA can be justified on a solitary smuggling incident only where the material objectively supports a real inference of future prejudicial activity. On the facts noted, there was only one alleged incident of foreign-currency smuggling, with no past antecedents or reliable material showing an organized pattern or real likelihood of repetition, so detention was not sustainable. Retention of the detenu&#039;s passport also substantially removed the basis for fearing further overseas smuggling, making the apprehension speculative. The commentary states that, without adequate material and where the stated risk is effectively foreclosed, preventive detention cannot stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>