<?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>1984 (6) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41594</link>
    <description>The court found the initial order made by the Collector without notice and hearing to be void, in contravention of the Customs Act and principles of natural justice. However, the court held that the invalidity of this order did not affect subsequent proceedings for confiscation and penalties under separate chapters of the Act. The court quashed penalties against certain petitioners due to lack of evidence or reasoning but directed the Collector to re-examine and impose appropriate penalties. The petitioners were denied entitlement to the return of gold as they disclaimed ownership. The writ petitions were disposed of with parties bearing their own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:39:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80124" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (6) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41594</link>
      <description>The court found the initial order made by the Collector without notice and hearing to be void, in contravention of the Customs Act and principles of natural justice. However, the court held that the invalidity of this order did not affect subsequent proceedings for confiscation and penalties under separate chapters of the Act. The court quashed penalties against certain petitioners due to lack of evidence or reasoning but directed the Collector to re-examine and impose appropriate penalties. The petitioners were denied entitlement to the return of gold as they disclaimed ownership. The writ petitions were disposed of with parties bearing their own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41594</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>