1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Interpretation of Customs Act: Benefit of Doubt Principle in Smuggling Cases</h1> The judgment focused on interpreting Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding the presumption of goods being smuggled. The court found insufficient ... Presumption as to smuggled nature of goods Issues:- Interpretation of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding the presumption of goods being smuggled.- Determination of foreign origin of seized goods and its significance in invoking the presumption under Section 123.- Evaluation of evidence presented by the party, specifically related to invoices and discrepancies in valuation.- Application of the benefit of doubt principle in the absence of conclusive evidence of smuggling.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding the presumption of goods being smuggled. The advocate argued that the seized diamonds, being of inferior quality and likely of Indian origin, should not be presumed as smuggled. The advocate emphasized that the origin of the goods is crucial in invoking the presumption under Section 123, citing a Supreme Court judgment that defined 'smuggled' as goods of foreign origin imported from abroad. The advocate contended that since the diamonds were of inferior quality and mainly cut and polished in India, they were likely of Indian origin, making them ineligible for the presumption of being smuggled.The judgment scrutinized the evidence presented by the party, particularly focusing on the invoices related to the seized goods. It was noted that while discrepancies were alleged in the valuation, weight, and number of diamonds in the invoices, the actual seized goods were of lesser weight and number than stated in the invoices. The judgment highlighted that discrepancies in valuation alone could not be the basis for rejecting the party's evidence, especially considering variations in diamond assessments and the tendency of seizing officers to value goods on the higher side. The authenticity of the invoices was presumed as genuine, as they were reportedly verified by the Department.Ultimately, the judgment concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the seized diamonds were of foreign origin or were likely smuggled goods. Given the lack of conclusive proof of smuggling and the benefit of doubt principle, the government decided to grant relief to the applicant by setting aside the orders of the lower authorities. The judgment underscored that in the absence of concrete evidence supporting the presumption of smuggling under Section 123, the benefit of doubt should be extended to the party involved, leading to a favorable outcome for the applicant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
