<?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>1989 (3) TMI 141 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42642</link>
    <description>For purposes of retaining seized currency or documents beyond one year, proceedings under Section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act commence with issuance of the Rule 3(1) show cause notice, because that notice contains the allegations and factual basis of the proposed adjudication and initiates the inquiry. The later notice under Rule 3(3) merely fixes a date for appearance after the cause shown is considered and is only a hearing intimation. The adjudicatory scheme was distinguished from the Customs Act framework, and the earlier Division Bench view was preferred over the contrary later view. On that basis, timely issue of the Rule 3(1) notice within one year validates continued retention under Section 41 until disposal of the adjudication proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Jun 2010 13:52:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81171" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (3) TMI 141 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42642</link>
      <description>For purposes of retaining seized currency or documents beyond one year, proceedings under Section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act commence with issuance of the Rule 3(1) show cause notice, because that notice contains the allegations and factual basis of the proposed adjudication and initiates the inquiry. The later notice under Rule 3(3) merely fixes a date for appearance after the cause shown is considered and is only a hearing intimation. The adjudicatory scheme was distinguished from the Customs Act framework, and the earlier Division Bench view was preferred over the contrary later view. On that basis, timely issue of the Rule 3(1) notice within one year validates continued retention under Section 41 until disposal of the adjudication proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42642</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>