<?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>2008 (4) TMI 326 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48445</link>
    <description>The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the lack of substantial evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged evasion of customs duty. The court highlighted that custodial interrogation was not necessary as the case primarily relied on documentary evidence. Anticipatory bail was provided with conditions such as cooperating with the investigation, obtaining court permission before leaving the country, and surrendering the passport if not already done.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2014 12:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86940" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 326 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48445</link>
      <description>The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the lack of substantial evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged evasion of customs duty. The court highlighted that custodial interrogation was not necessary as the case primarily relied on documentary evidence. Anticipatory bail was provided with conditions such as cooperating with the investigation, obtaining court permission before leaving the country, and surrendering the passport if not already done.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48445</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>