<?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>1975 (3) TMI 29 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40622</link>
    <description>An ex parte extension of time for issuing customs notice was held unsustainable because the proviso required a quasi-judicial approach and hearing of the affected person; the later release arrangement did not amount to waiver. The seizure of the nickel consignment was upheld because objective material, including doubtful origin and absence of lawful import documents, furnished reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. The show cause notice was also sustained: clearance for home consumption did not create estoppel against statutory enforcement, and an erroneous clearance did not bar action under the Customs Act. The appellate result was partial relief only on the extension order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 10:50:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79153" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (3) TMI 29 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40622</link>
      <description>An ex parte extension of time for issuing customs notice was held unsustainable because the proviso required a quasi-judicial approach and hearing of the affected person; the later release arrangement did not amount to waiver. The seizure of the nickel consignment was upheld because objective material, including doubtful origin and absence of lawful import documents, furnished reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. The show cause notice was also sustained: clearance for home consumption did not create estoppel against statutory enforcement, and an erroneous clearance did not bar action under the Customs Act. The appellate result was partial relief only on the extension order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40622</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>