<?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>2000 (8) TMI 1119 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192481</link>
    <description>The term &quot;Magistrate&quot; in Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act was construed to mean a Judicial Magistrate, not an Executive Magistrate, because the Act does not define the term and Section 104 contemplates production before a Magistrate after arrest without unnecessary delay. On that interpretation, the Metropolitan Magistrate was competent to consider the application for verification and certification of inventory under Section 110(1B), and the petition was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Jun 2017 18:26:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=470803" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 1119 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192481</link>
      <description>The term &quot;Magistrate&quot; in Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act was construed to mean a Judicial Magistrate, not an Executive Magistrate, because the Act does not define the term and Section 104 contemplates production before a Magistrate after arrest without unnecessary delay. On that interpretation, the Metropolitan Magistrate was competent to consider the application for verification and certification of inventory under Section 110(1B), and the petition was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192481</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>