<?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>2003 (10) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47085</link>
    <description>Possession of a large quantity of foreign currency without any claim of ownership or proof of lawful entitlement supported confiscation under the Customs and foreign exchange laws. The Court held that, where the person carrying the currency could not identify the true owner and no one established a lawful right to possess it, the Tribunal erred in directing return of the currency. On the peculiar facts, presumptions could be drawn from the surrounding circumstances as to the intended movement and use of the currency, and strict direct proof of attempted export was not necessary. The confiscation order was therefore sustained and the Revenue&#039;s position accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:44:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85605" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47085</link>
      <description>Possession of a large quantity of foreign currency without any claim of ownership or proof of lawful entitlement supported confiscation under the Customs and foreign exchange laws. The Court held that, where the person carrying the currency could not identify the true owner and no one established a lawful right to possess it, the Tribunal erred in directing return of the currency. On the peculiar facts, presumptions could be drawn from the surrounding circumstances as to the intended movement and use of the currency, and strict direct proof of attempted export was not necessary. The confiscation order was therefore sustained and the Revenue&#039;s position accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47085</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>