<?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 (11) TMI 203 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34424</link>
    <description>Detailed and accurate information furnished to customs authorities on 9 April 1991 was found to have a direct nexus with the later seizure of 99 silver bars from the vessel AL-KARA. Although reward under the guidelines is not claimable as of right, the exercise of discretion remains subject to judicial review where it is arbitrary or contrary to law. On the admitted and documentary material, no prior material disproved the informer&#039;s account, and the departmental correspondence itself linked the seizure to that information. The refusal to grant reward was therefore unjustified, and the informer was entitled to reward on the basis of the information supplied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73047" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 203 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34424</link>
      <description>Detailed and accurate information furnished to customs authorities on 9 April 1991 was found to have a direct nexus with the later seizure of 99 silver bars from the vessel AL-KARA. Although reward under the guidelines is not claimable as of right, the exercise of discretion remains subject to judicial review where it is arbitrary or contrary to law. On the admitted and documentary material, no prior material disproved the informer&#039;s account, and the departmental correspondence itself linked the seizure to that information. The refusal to grant reward was therefore unjustified, and the informer was entitled to reward on the basis of the information supplied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34424</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>