<?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>1964 (2) TMI 2 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45134</link>
    <description>Foreign companies whose vessels contravened Section 52A of the Sea Customs Act could not invoke Article 19(1)(f) to challenge the validity of the provision or the penalties imposed in lieu of confiscation under Section 167(12A) read with Section 183. The Shipping Corporation of India also could not rely on Article 19(1) because it was not a citizen of India. On that reasoning, the constitutional challenge to Section 52A and the associated penalties failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 24 Aug 2014 17:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83663" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (2) TMI 2 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45134</link>
      <description>Foreign companies whose vessels contravened Section 52A of the Sea Customs Act could not invoke Article 19(1)(f) to challenge the validity of the provision or the penalties imposed in lieu of confiscation under Section 167(12A) read with Section 183. The Shipping Corporation of India also could not rely on Article 19(1) because it was not a citizen of India. On that reasoning, the constitutional challenge to Section 52A and the associated penalties failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45134</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>