<?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>1957 (2) TMI 3 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45720</link>
    <description>Penalty under the customs confiscation provision applied only to a person concerned in the prohibited importation, so a buyer who acquired smuggled gold only after importation, even with knowledge of its character, was outside the penal reach and the penalty was unsustainable. The direction to release part of the sale price to the smuggler was also without jurisdiction because the gold was liable to confiscation and the consideration could not lawfully be restored to the importer; on the findings, that amount belonged to the purchaser who had paid it in the transaction. The impugned order was therefore set aside in its material parts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:58:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84247" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (2) TMI 3 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45720</link>
      <description>Penalty under the customs confiscation provision applied only to a person concerned in the prohibited importation, so a buyer who acquired smuggled gold only after importation, even with knowledge of its character, was outside the penal reach and the penalty was unsustainable. The direction to release part of the sale price to the smuggler was also without jurisdiction because the gold was liable to confiscation and the consideration could not lawfully be restored to the importer; on the findings, that amount belonged to the purchaser who had paid it in the transaction. The impugned order was therefore set aside in its material parts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45720</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>