<?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>1987 (1) TMI 105 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42340</link>
    <description>A complaint alleging a conspiracy to export foreign exchange could not support process against the petitioner where the material showed only limited earlier involvement as an employee of a travelling agency. The complaint and retracted statement did not disclose knowledge of, or participation in, the common design for the later alleged export attempt, so the essential ingredient of a single general conspiracy was missing. Presumptions under the Customs Act and FERA could not be used to fill that gap, and the complaint as a whole did not disclose the necessary ingredients for proceeding. The order issuing process was therefore unsustainable and liable to be set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:51:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80869" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (1) TMI 105 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42340</link>
      <description>A complaint alleging a conspiracy to export foreign exchange could not support process against the petitioner where the material showed only limited earlier involvement as an employee of a travelling agency. The complaint and retracted statement did not disclose knowledge of, or participation in, the common design for the later alleged export attempt, so the essential ingredient of a single general conspiracy was missing. Presumptions under the Customs Act and FERA could not be used to fill that gap, and the complaint as a whole did not disclose the necessary ingredients for proceeding. The order issuing process was therefore unsustainable and liable to be set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42340</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>