<?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>2008 (8) TMI 989 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280671</link>
    <description>Delay in executing a detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act does not invalidate the order where the detenu absconds or conceals himself and the delay is satisfactorily explained. Section 7 permits statutory measures against an absconding detenu. Authorities must initially demonstrate prompt efforts to execute the order; after a notified direction to appear is issued and ignored, the detenu must show that compliance was impossible and that required intimation was given. A detenu cannot rely on delay caused by his own unavailability. Article 22(5) is satisfied where all reasonably possible execution steps are taken.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 May 2019 11:53:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=571397" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 989 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280671</link>
      <description>Delay in executing a detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act does not invalidate the order where the detenu absconds or conceals himself and the delay is satisfactorily explained. Section 7 permits statutory measures against an absconding detenu. Authorities must initially demonstrate prompt efforts to execute the order; after a notified direction to appear is issued and ignored, the detenu must show that compliance was impossible and that required intimation was given. A detenu cannot rely on delay caused by his own unavailability. Article 22(5) is satisfied where all reasonably possible execution steps are taken.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280671</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>