<?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>2005 (3) TMI 812 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289227</link>
    <description>A preventive detention order under COFEPOSA founded on multiple independent heads is severable: Section 5-A applies to supporting grounds, not to the heads themselves, so failure of one head does not invalidate the entire order if another head is independently supported by material. On the facts, concealment of foreign currency in hand baggage and attempted departure from India without declaration to customs authorities supplied sufficient material for subjective satisfaction under smuggling of goods under Section 3(1)(i), regardless of the challenge to the other head. The detention order was therefore sustainable on the supported head, and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:31:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=617968" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 812 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289227</link>
      <description>A preventive detention order under COFEPOSA founded on multiple independent heads is severable: Section 5-A applies to supporting grounds, not to the heads themselves, so failure of one head does not invalidate the entire order if another head is independently supported by material. On the facts, concealment of foreign currency in hand baggage and attempted departure from India without declaration to customs authorities supplied sufficient material for subjective satisfaction under smuggling of goods under Section 3(1)(i), regardless of the challenge to the other head. The detention order was therefore sustainable on the supported head, and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289227</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>