<?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>2002 (8) TMI 113 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46420</link>
    <description>Preventive detention was not vitiated by delay where the interval in passing the order was explained by contemporaneous processing, screening committee consideration, supporting statements and issuance of show cause notice, and the order&#039;s service in jail followed soon after issuance. The detaining authority was also found to have considered the essential material, including interception with gold bars, the detenu&#039;s statement, prior India visits and the likelihood of resuming smuggling, so the omission of cognizance, challan or sanction papers did not show non-application of mind. On that basis, the detention order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:08:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84941" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 113 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46420</link>
      <description>Preventive detention was not vitiated by delay where the interval in passing the order was explained by contemporaneous processing, screening committee consideration, supporting statements and issuance of show cause notice, and the order&#039;s service in jail followed soon after issuance. The detaining authority was also found to have considered the essential material, including interception with gold bars, the detenu&#039;s statement, prior India visits and the likelihood of resuming smuggling, so the omission of cognizance, challan or sanction papers did not show non-application of mind. On that basis, the detention order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46420</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>