<?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>2002 (4) TMI 942 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172758</link>
    <description>In a Customs Act sentencing matter, the Delhi HC considered whether imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone. The petition was confined to sentence, and the court weighed the long pendency of the trial, the incarceration already suffered, the fine already deposited, and the confiscation of undeclared goods brought into the country. On those factors, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2015 15:25:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395170" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 942 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172758</link>
      <description>In a Customs Act sentencing matter, the Delhi HC considered whether imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone. The petition was confined to sentence, and the court weighed the long pendency of the trial, the incarceration already suffered, the fine already deposited, and the confiscation of undeclared goods brought into the country. On those factors, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172758</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>