<?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>1992 (5) TMI 20 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43229</link>
    <description>Pre-execution judicial review of preventive detention is confined to exceptional grounds, including lack of authority, wrong purpose, misidentification, or detention founded on vague, extraneous, or irrelevant material; prior disclosure of detention grounds is not a general right. Clandestine removal of warehoused imported goods without the proper officer&#039;s permission may still constitute smuggling, and abetment may arise on the same basis, even where duty has been assessed and recovery proceedings remain available. On the stated facts, the proposed detention was treated as falling within the statutory scheme and not shown to rest on vague or irrelevant grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81758" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (5) TMI 20 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43229</link>
      <description>Pre-execution judicial review of preventive detention is confined to exceptional grounds, including lack of authority, wrong purpose, misidentification, or detention founded on vague, extraneous, or irrelevant material; prior disclosure of detention grounds is not a general right. Clandestine removal of warehoused imported goods without the proper officer&#039;s permission may still constitute smuggling, and abetment may arise on the same basis, even where duty has been assessed and recovery proceedings remain available. On the stated facts, the proposed detention was treated as falling within the statutory scheme and not shown to rest on vague or irrelevant grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43229</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>