<?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 (9) TMI 65 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41905</link>
    <description>Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 confers a quasi-judicial discretion on the adjudicating officer to allow redemption of confiscated goods on payment of fine, and that discretion must be exercised independently, fairly, and on relevant considerations rather than under binding Board directions. The text also states that an absolute confiscation order is vulnerable where the authority departs from consistent prior treatment without justification, relies on unsupported assumptions, or is influenced by irrelevant and biased considerations. It further notes that consistent comparable cases allowing redemption must be addressed with proper reasons. The stated result is quashing of the confiscation order and reconsideration of redemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:14:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80434" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (9) TMI 65 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41905</link>
      <description>Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 confers a quasi-judicial discretion on the adjudicating officer to allow redemption of confiscated goods on payment of fine, and that discretion must be exercised independently, fairly, and on relevant considerations rather than under binding Board directions. The text also states that an absolute confiscation order is vulnerable where the authority departs from consistent prior treatment without justification, relies on unsupported assumptions, or is influenced by irrelevant and biased considerations. It further notes that consistent comparable cases allowing redemption must be addressed with proper reasons. The stated result is quashing of the confiscation order and reconsideration of redemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41905</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>