<?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 (7) TMI 71 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43400</link>
    <description>Carrying undeclared jewellery and goods through the customs barrier without import documents was treated as at least an attempted contravention of the import control regime, and liability under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act was sustained. The Court found it unsafe to accept the prosecution case of a complete non-declaration under the Customs Act, but that did not displace the conclusion that the conduct still attracted the import control prohibition. The appellant was also entitled to set-off for custody already undergone under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and no further surrender was required because the relevant custody period had been exhausted and the fine had been paid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:07:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81929" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (7) TMI 71 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43400</link>
      <description>Carrying undeclared jewellery and goods through the customs barrier without import documents was treated as at least an attempted contravention of the import control regime, and liability under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act was sustained. The Court found it unsafe to accept the prosecution case of a complete non-declaration under the Customs Act, but that did not displace the conclusion that the conduct still attracted the import control prohibition. The appellant was also entitled to set-off for custody already undergone under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and no further surrender was required because the relevant custody period had been exhausted and the fine had been paid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43400</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>