<?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>1969 (4) TMI 115 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177704</link>
    <description>An alleged attempt to export silver was not proved because &quot;attempt&quot; under customs law requires more than preparation and needs direct movement towards the prohibited export; suspicious conduct, unexplained records, and storage in a transport godown were insufficient without evidence of a destination or export step. The confiscation and personal penalty were therefore liable to be quashed. The court also held that the writ petition could not be refused for non-exhaustion of alternative remedies because the appeal was time-barred and required deposit of penalty, while revision was discretionary and not equally efficacious. Relief was thus maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 19:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=413228" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (4) TMI 115 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177704</link>
      <description>An alleged attempt to export silver was not proved because &quot;attempt&quot; under customs law requires more than preparation and needs direct movement towards the prohibited export; suspicious conduct, unexplained records, and storage in a transport godown were insufficient without evidence of a destination or export step. The confiscation and personal penalty were therefore liable to be quashed. The court also held that the writ petition could not be refused for non-exhaustion of alternative remedies because the appeal was time-barred and required deposit of penalty, while revision was discretionary and not equally efficacious. Relief was thus maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177704</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>