<?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>1962 (8) TMI 4 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45777</link>
    <description>Delay and the availability of an alternative statutory appeal do not automatically bar writ jurisdiction, though they remain relevant discretionary factors; in the stated material, the writ was entertained despite lapse of time because the penalty lacked support. Confiscation of seized gold was sustained where concealment, suspicious acquisition circumstances, failure to discharge the burden of proving lawful origin, and assay evidence indicating foreign origin supported the order. A personal penalty for being concerned in importation requires evidence of participation in some step of the import process; mere purchase or possession after importation is insufficient, so such a penalty could not stand on the facts stated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:20:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84304" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (8) TMI 4 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45777</link>
      <description>Delay and the availability of an alternative statutory appeal do not automatically bar writ jurisdiction, though they remain relevant discretionary factors; in the stated material, the writ was entertained despite lapse of time because the penalty lacked support. Confiscation of seized gold was sustained where concealment, suspicious acquisition circumstances, failure to discharge the burden of proving lawful origin, and assay evidence indicating foreign origin supported the order. A personal penalty for being concerned in importation requires evidence of participation in some step of the import process; mere purchase or possession after importation is insufficient, so such a penalty could not stand on the facts stated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45777</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>