<?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>1985 (2) TMI 48 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41876</link>
    <description>Customs seizure and confiscation proceedings require a bona fide reasonable belief, founded on reliable material, that the export consignment contains prohibited goods. Here, conflicting botanical opinions were assessed, and the later scientific report using macroscopic, microscopic, and chromatographic examination was preferred. On that evidence, the consignment was found to contain Vinca rosea roots and stems and stems of Rauwolfia canescens, not Rauwolfia serpentina. As the alleged prohibited substance was not established, the seizure, show-cause notice, adjudication, and penalty proceedings were quashed and the goods ordered to be released.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:36:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80405" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (2) TMI 48 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41876</link>
      <description>Customs seizure and confiscation proceedings require a bona fide reasonable belief, founded on reliable material, that the export consignment contains prohibited goods. Here, conflicting botanical opinions were assessed, and the later scientific report using macroscopic, microscopic, and chromatographic examination was preferred. On that evidence, the consignment was found to contain Vinca rosea roots and stems and stems of Rauwolfia canescens, not Rauwolfia serpentina. As the alleged prohibited substance was not established, the seizure, show-cause notice, adjudication, and penalty proceedings were quashed and the goods ordered to be released.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41876</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>