<?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>2018 (5) TMI 452 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359888</link>
    <description>The court ruled against quashing the Seizure notice regarding gold jewelry found at Chennai Airport, valued at &amp;amp;8377;11,44,201, concealed under a petitioner&#039;s burka. Despite the initial denial of knowledge about the items, the court considered factors such as her nationality and her husband&#039;s employment in Bangkok. Following precedent, the court directed the provisional release of the jewelry upon payment of 50% duty. The petitioner must pay the duty, file a personal bond for the remaining amount, cooperate in adjudication, and the third respondent will release the jewelry upon payment. The writ petition was disposed of with these directives and no costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2018 14:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=519257" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 452 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359888</link>
      <description>The court ruled against quashing the Seizure notice regarding gold jewelry found at Chennai Airport, valued at &amp;amp;8377;11,44,201, concealed under a petitioner&#039;s burka. Despite the initial denial of knowledge about the items, the court considered factors such as her nationality and her husband&#039;s employment in Bangkok. Following precedent, the court directed the provisional release of the jewelry upon payment of 50% duty. The petitioner must pay the duty, file a personal bond for the remaining amount, cooperate in adjudication, and the third respondent will release the jewelry upon payment. The writ petition was disposed of with these directives and no costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359888</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>