<?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>2013 (2) TMI 832 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196137</link>
    <description>Summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were challenged in writ jurisdiction on the grounds that the recipient was a foreign national outside India and that the summons amounted to investigation of a non-cognizable offence without prior CrPC permission. The court accepted the respondents&#039; position that no such offence investigation was underway and that only summons had been issued. It also found no material showing that the cited authority required Section 108 summons to be treated as part of an offence investigation, and no finding that the petitioner was an Indian citizen. On those facts, the court declined interference under Article 226 and rejected the writ petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=496853" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (2) TMI 832 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196137</link>
      <description>Summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were challenged in writ jurisdiction on the grounds that the recipient was a foreign national outside India and that the summons amounted to investigation of a non-cognizable offence without prior CrPC permission. The court accepted the respondents&#039; position that no such offence investigation was underway and that only summons had been issued. It also found no material showing that the cited authority required Section 108 summons to be treated as part of an offence investigation, and no finding that the petitioner was an Indian citizen. On those facts, the court declined interference under Article 226 and rejected the writ petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196137</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>