<?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>1952 (9) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45739</link>
    <description>A customs penalty cannot be imposed on a person merely concerned in the offence without prior notice and a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as natural justice applies to punitive action; the personal penalty was therefore unsustainable. Confiscation, however, could proceed against the person recognised by the Act as owner for customs purposes, and the confiscation order was upheld without notice to the petitioner. In prohibited-import cases governed by the import-control regime, the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation was discretionary rather than mandatory, so no enforceable right to redemption existed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:20:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84266" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1952 (9) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45739</link>
      <description>A customs penalty cannot be imposed on a person merely concerned in the offence without prior notice and a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as natural justice applies to punitive action; the personal penalty was therefore unsustainable. Confiscation, however, could proceed against the person recognised by the Act as owner for customs purposes, and the confiscation order was upheld without notice to the petitioner. In prohibited-import cases governed by the import-control regime, the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation was discretionary rather than mandatory, so no enforceable right to redemption existed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45739</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>