<?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 128 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46771</link>
    <description>Mandamus was unavailable to secure release of a confiscated vehicle when the confiscation and appellate orders were not challenged and the authorities were not impleaded. The text also stresses that suppression of an earlier writ petition and unexplained delay are serious defects in discretionary writ jurisdiction, defeating equitable relief. On the confiscation issue, a vehicle used to conceal and transport contraband gold was treated as liable to confiscation under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act unless the owner proved lack of knowledge or connivance and showed reasonable precautions; absent such proof, the confiscation was sustained and evidence was not reappreciated in writ proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:05:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85291" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 128 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46771</link>
      <description>Mandamus was unavailable to secure release of a confiscated vehicle when the confiscation and appellate orders were not challenged and the authorities were not impleaded. The text also stresses that suppression of an earlier writ petition and unexplained delay are serious defects in discretionary writ jurisdiction, defeating equitable relief. On the confiscation issue, a vehicle used to conceal and transport contraband gold was treated as liable to confiscation under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act unless the owner proved lack of knowledge or connivance and showed reasonable precautions; absent such proof, the confiscation was sustained and evidence was not reappreciated in writ proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46771</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>