<?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>1964 (11) TMI 111 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195598</link>
    <description>Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld as constitutionally valid, with the Court holding that the search power was sufficiently guided by the requirement of reason to believe, the status of the authorised officer, applicable criminal procedure safeguards, and the anti-smuggling purpose of the Act. The Court further held that search warrants were not invalid merely because they lacked detailed particulars of the secreted goods or disclosed less of the officer&#039;s information, and it found substantial compliance with the search procedure. The contention that a warrant could issue only when a proceeding was already pending or clearly contemplated also failed. Detention of two bottles of Indian-made beer alone was disallowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Nov 2017 18:36:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=494761" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (11) TMI 111 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195598</link>
      <description>Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld as constitutionally valid, with the Court holding that the search power was sufficiently guided by the requirement of reason to believe, the status of the authorised officer, applicable criminal procedure safeguards, and the anti-smuggling purpose of the Act. The Court further held that search warrants were not invalid merely because they lacked detailed particulars of the secreted goods or disclosed less of the officer&#039;s information, and it found substantial compliance with the search procedure. The contention that a warrant could issue only when a proceeding was already pending or clearly contemplated also failed. Detention of two bottles of Indian-made beer alone was disallowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195598</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>