https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45743 The High Court of Madras had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as part of the cause of action arose in Madras. Despite the availability of an alternative remedy, the court held the writ petition was maintainable due to alleged violations of natural justice and inability to pay the penalty. The court found that the burden of proof was wrongly placed on the petitioners regarding the smuggled TV and concluded that the confiscation and penalty were illegal. The court ordered the restoration of the TV set or payment of Rs. 68,200/- to the petitioners. en-us Fri, 07 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:30:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45743 The High Court of Madras had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as part of the cause of action arose in Madras. Despite the availability of an alternative remedy, the court held the writ petition was maintainable due to alleged violations of natural justice and inability to pay the penalty. The court found that the burden of proof was wrongly placed on the petitioners regarding the smuggled TV and concluded that the confiscation and penalty were illegal. The court ordered the restoration of the TV set or payment of Rs. 68,200/- to the petitioners. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 07 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45743