<?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>1932 (7) TMI 12 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275898</link>
    <description>A legislature with plenary competence over customs may enact ancillary enforcement provisions with extraterritorial effect, including boarding, examination, seizure and forfeiture measures needed to prevent smuggling. The Privy Council examined the scheme in light of international law, Imperial and Dominion practice, and the British North America Act, and held that Dominion customs competence was not cut down by an implied territorial limitation where the legislation was directed to effective customs control. The provisions were therefore within legislative competence, and the seizure and forfeiture regime was upheld as valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 1932 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2018 16:15:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=539113" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1932 (7) TMI 12 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275898</link>
      <description>A legislature with plenary competence over customs may enact ancillary enforcement provisions with extraterritorial effect, including boarding, examination, seizure and forfeiture measures needed to prevent smuggling. The Privy Council examined the scheme in light of international law, Imperial and Dominion practice, and the British North America Act, and held that Dominion customs competence was not cut down by an implied territorial limitation where the legislation was directed to effective customs control. The provisions were therefore within legislative competence, and the seizure and forfeiture regime was upheld as valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 1932 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275898</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>