TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, on seizure of gold under Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, the prosecution was required first to prove foreign origin before the statutory burden shifted to the person from whose possession the goods were seized.
Analysis: Section 178A applies where goods of the specified class are seized in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods. Once that condition is satisfied, the burden is placed on the possessor to prove that the goods are not smuggled goods. The section does not require the prosecution to establish, as a preliminary condition, that the goods were first imported from abroad or to prove affirmatively that they were not of Indian origin. The reasonable-belief requirement was also not shown to be absent on the record, and the prior constitutional validity of the provision stood accepted.
Conclusion: The burden remained on the appellant to disprove smuggling, and the contention that the prosecution had first to prove foreign origin was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The statutory presumption under Section 178A operated against the possessor of the seized gold, and the appeal failed on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: Where goods of a notified class are seized in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled, Section 178A shifts the burden to the possessor to prove the goods are not smuggled, without any prior obligation on the prosecution to prove foreign origin.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
