<?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>2007 (2) TMI 230 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48106</link>
    <description>The court determined that the offence under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act is bailable. Therefore, the applicant&#039;s anticipatory bail application was found not tenable under Section 438. The court held that if the applicant is arrested by Customs authorities, they are entitled to immediate bail. The application was disposed of with directions for bail if arrested by Customs authorities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2017 14:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86618" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (2) TMI 230 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48106</link>
      <description>The court determined that the offence under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act is bailable. Therefore, the applicant&#039;s anticipatory bail application was found not tenable under Section 438. The court held that if the applicant is arrested by Customs authorities, they are entitled to immediate bail. The application was disposed of with directions for bail if arrested by Customs authorities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48106</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>