<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>taxesinindia &#187; confiscation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/tag/confiscation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:33:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>CLAUSE (O) OF SECTION 111 OF CUSTOMS ACT, 1962</title>
		<link>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/03/07/clause-o-of-section-111-of-customs-act-1962/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=clause-o-of-section-111-of-customs-act-1962</link>
		<comments>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/03/07/clause-o-of-section-111-of-customs-act-1962/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Mar 2010 10:56:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confiscation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CUSTOMS ACT 1962]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PENALTY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEC 111(O)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/03/07/clause-o-of-section-111-of-customs-act-1962/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, while deciding on 24.9.09 the Customs Application No.9 of 2001 in re: COMMR. OF CUS. [PREVENTIVE] vs LEELA SCOTTISH LACE PVT. LTD, it was held as follows:- QUOTE: It would be clear that what the Supreme Court has held that Clause (o) of Section 111 of the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/03/07/clause-o-of-section-111-of-customs-act-1962/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SCHIZOPHRENIC APPROACH</title>
		<link>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/06/15/schizophrenic-approach/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=schizophrenic-approach</link>
		<comments>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/06/15/schizophrenic-approach/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:36:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confiscation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCHIZOPHRENIC APPROACH]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[seizure]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/06/15/schizophrenic-approach/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ADOPTING SCHIZOPHRENIC APPROACH The HIGH COURT OF DELHI, while deciding W.P. (C ) No. 10982 of 2006 on 20.03.2009 in re : VIJAY GULATI vs U.O.I. observed as follows : - QUOTE : Now, the jurisdiction of the Customs authorities vis-à-vis the two sets of foreign exchange – one seized near the Airport [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/06/15/schizophrenic-approach/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

