<?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>2006 (7) TMI 227 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47891</link>
    <description>Customs proceedings are not excluded merely because the same import-export conduct may also attract the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992; the Customs Act, 1962 continues to supply independent machinery for levy, confiscation, penalty and related action where evasion of duty or contravention of customs law is alleged. On the compensation claim for alleged wrongful detention and custodial torture, the writ court declined to intervene at the show-cause stage because a criminal complaint on the same allegations was already pending before a competent court, leaving the petitioners to raise defences in reply and pursue remedies in accordance with law. The challenge to the show-cause notice was not accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:35:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86407" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 227 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47891</link>
      <description>Customs proceedings are not excluded merely because the same import-export conduct may also attract the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992; the Customs Act, 1962 continues to supply independent machinery for levy, confiscation, penalty and related action where evasion of duty or contravention of customs law is alleged. On the compensation claim for alleged wrongful detention and custodial torture, the writ court declined to intervene at the show-cause stage because a criminal complaint on the same allegations was already pending before a competent court, leaving the petitioners to raise defences in reply and pursue remedies in accordance with law. The challenge to the show-cause notice was not accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47891</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>