<?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>2020 (7) TMI 564 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396895</link>
    <description>Non-placement of the letter of extrication, summons, and non-recovery panchnama did not vitiate the detention order because none was shown to be vital to the detaining authority&#039;s subjective satisfaction; the letter was received only after the order, the summons had been received and acted upon, and the panchnama was not a relied-upon or germane document. Preventive detention will not be interfered with unless the decision is unsupported by relevant material or otherwise illegal. On the record, admissions of repeated smuggling activity, the organised nature of the operation, associate involvement, and the detenu&#039;s propensity to continue such conduct provided sufficient basis for subjective satisfaction, and the retraction did not dislodge that basis. The detention order was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2020 08:51:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=618262" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (7) TMI 564 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396895</link>
      <description>Non-placement of the letter of extrication, summons, and non-recovery panchnama did not vitiate the detention order because none was shown to be vital to the detaining authority&#039;s subjective satisfaction; the letter was received only after the order, the summons had been received and acted upon, and the panchnama was not a relied-upon or germane document. Preventive detention will not be interfered with unless the decision is unsupported by relevant material or otherwise illegal. On the record, admissions of repeated smuggling activity, the organised nature of the operation, associate involvement, and the detenu&#039;s propensity to continue such conduct provided sufficient basis for subjective satisfaction, and the retraction did not dislodge that basis. The detention order was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396895</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>