<?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>1963 (2) TMI 32 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45131</link>
    <description>The statutory power to control imports was held broad enough to regulate post-import disposal and use of imported goods through valid licence conditions, where such control was necessary to ensure the goods were used for the permitted purpose. Breach of a licence condition made obligatory by the Imports (Control) Order was treated as contravention of the Order itself and therefore punishable under the parent Act. A person who intentionally authorised or assisted disposal in breach of the licence could be liable for abetment even without being the licensee or having actual possession of the goods. The sentence was upheld as not excessive in the circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83660" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (2) TMI 32 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45131</link>
      <description>The statutory power to control imports was held broad enough to regulate post-import disposal and use of imported goods through valid licence conditions, where such control was necessary to ensure the goods were used for the permitted purpose. Breach of a licence condition made obligatory by the Imports (Control) Order was treated as contravention of the Order itself and therefore punishable under the parent Act. A person who intentionally authorised or assisted disposal in breach of the licence could be liable for abetment even without being the licensee or having actual possession of the goods. The sentence was upheld as not excessive in the circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45131</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>