<?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>2005 (1) TMI 120 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47430</link>
    <description>The court granted bail to the petitioner under Section 439 for offences under the Customs Act, 1962. The court found that the offence under Section 135(1)(a) was compoundable, and as no clear allegations of misdeclaration of value were present, bail was allowed. The petitioner was required to furnish a personal bond and sureties, with the condition not to leave the country without court permission.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:16:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85949" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 120 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47430</link>
      <description>The court granted bail to the petitioner under Section 439 for offences under the Customs Act, 1962. The court found that the offence under Section 135(1)(a) was compoundable, and as no clear allegations of misdeclaration of value were present, bail was allowed. The petitioner was required to furnish a personal bond and sureties, with the condition not to leave the country without court permission.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47430</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>