<?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>2006 (7) TMI 658 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173473</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the petition seeking to quash the detention order under the COFEPOSA Act. It held that the non-supply of shipping bills did not prejudice the petitioner&#039;s right to make an effective representation. The court justified the delay in passing the detention order due to the complexity of the case and extensive investigation. The detention order was upheld based on detailed grounds of detention and substantial evidence presented.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:21:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397559" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 658 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173473</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the petition seeking to quash the detention order under the COFEPOSA Act. It held that the non-supply of shipping bills did not prejudice the petitioner&#039;s right to make an effective representation. The court justified the delay in passing the detention order due to the complexity of the case and extensive investigation. The detention order was upheld based on detailed grounds of detention and substantial evidence presented.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173473</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>