Section 73 permits comparison of signatures, writings and seals to determine whether a disputed mark was made by the person it purports to identify. A signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the Court's satisfaction may be used as the comparison standard. The Court may require a person present to provide words or figures for comparison. The mechanism extends to finger-impressions.

Proof of an attested document not required by law to be attested is governed by the rules applicable to an unattested document. The fact that the document bears attestation does not itself attract the evidentiary mode prescribed for documents whose attestation is legally mandatory.

Proof of execution may be established by other evidence where an attesting witness denies the execution of the document or does not recollect it. Other evidence remains available to prove execution when the witness either disputes that the document was executed or cannot remember the execution, so the denial or lack of recollection does not prevent proof through evidentiary material independent of the witness's recollection.

Admission of execution by a party to an attested document is sufficient proof of its execution against that party. This applies even where the law requires the document to be attested, dispensing with further proof of execution against the party making the admission.

Where no attesting witness can be found, proof requires evidence that at least one witness's attestation is in that witness's handwriting and that the executant's signature is in the executant's handwriting. The same requirements apply where the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom.

Section 68 requires proof of execution before a document legally required to be attested may be used as evidence. At least one attesting witness must be called where the witness is alive, subject to the court's process, and capable of giving evidence. For registered documents other than wills, this requirement does not apply unless execution is specifically denied by the purported executant.

Section 67A requires proof that an alleged electronic signature affixed to an electronic record belongs to the stated subscriber, except where it is a secure electronic signature. It establishes an evidentiary authentication requirement for ordinary electronic signatures while preserving distinct treatment for secure electronic signatures.

Section 67 requires proof of a person's signature or handwriting where a document is alleged to have been signed or written, wholly or partly, by that person. The party relying on the allegation must establish that the disputed signature or relevant handwriting is genuinely attributable to the alleged signer or writer.

Secondary evidence of a document's contents generally requires prior notice to produce the original to the party having possession or power over it, or to that party's attorney or pleader. Where no notice is legally prescribed, the Court may require reasonable notice. Notice may be dispensed with where the document is itself a notice, production is evidently required, the original was obtained by fraud or force, is in Court, its loss is admitted, or its holder is beyond the Court's process.

Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Cash deposits attributed to an individual were supported by a bank certificate showing incorrect PAN updating and were considered in the charitable trust's assessment, including an addition for the same cash. Non-addition in the individual's assessment was therefore justified, so the conditions for revision were not met and the revision order was set aside.

Representative sampling is material to the statutory bail threshold for commercial-quantity narcotics offences. Combining two slabs of charas before drawing representative samples may make the sample sent for chemical analysis non-representative, providing a prima facie basis to overcome the restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act. Prolonged custody, completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, and no apparent flight risk or risk of repeat offending further support conditional release. On these factors, the statutory threshold for bail was considered satisfied.

Electronic records in computer-output form may be treated as documents and admitted without original production when prescribed reliability conditions are met. The computer must have been regularly used under lawful control; relevant data must have been regularly entered in the ordinary course; operational failures must not affect accuracy; and the output must reproduce or derive from that data. A certificate identifying the record and production process, giving appropriate device particulars, and addressing these conditions may be signed by a responsible official.

Electronic records are subject to a special evidentiary framework for proving their contents under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 65A directs that the contents of an electronic record may be proved in accordance with Section 65B. Section 65B is identified as the governing route for proof of electronic-record contents within documentary evidence.

Secondary evidence may be admitted where an original is unavailable after required notice, has been lost or destroyed without fault, cannot readily be moved, or where its contents are admitted in writing. The admissible form varies by circumstance: written admissions are admissible for admitted contents; only certified copies may prove public documents or documents legally provable by certified copy; and a skilled examiner may prove the general result of numerous documents that cannot conveniently be examined.

National Assessment Centre Portal operates as a public digital repository supporting uniform and consistent Customs assessment under the Faceless Assessment framework. It provides searchable access to audit objections, advance rulings, judicial and quasi-judicial decisions, meeting records, advisories, alerts, circulars, and classification, valuation, and policy-related material. Importers, Customs brokers, and trade stakeholders may use these resources to obtain assessment references, support informed compliance, and reduce divergent practices. Authenticated departmental users have role-based functions to upload and manage assessment reports, policy references, audit objections, investigations, rulings, legal decisions, meeting records, no.....

Section 64 establishes the general evidentiary rule governing proof of documentary evidence: documents must ordinarily be proved through primary evidence. Departure from that requirement is permissible only in subsequently specified cases. Primary evidence remains the ordinary and mandatory mode for establishing documentary contents, while alternative forms of proof are confined exclusively to recognised exceptions in legally specified evidentiary circumstances.

Secondary evidence in documentary proof includes certified copies; copies produced through mechanical processes that inherently assure accuracy and copies compared with them; copies made from or compared with an original; counterparts relied on against parties who did not execute them; and oral accounts of document contents by a person who has personally seen the document.

Permission for a customs freight station to handle international transshipment of less-than-container-load containers and related operations is renewed for a further two years, up to 10 September 2028. The facility must comply with prescribed conditions and procedures under the applicable customs circulars, public notices, the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009, and the Customs Act, 1962. Any lapse in compliance may result in withdrawal of the permission without further notice.

Proper officers must verify applicable licences, permissions, registration certificates and other prescribed particulars against the relevant CDSCO checklist before granting Out-of-Charge for PGA-facilitated imports of cosmetics, drugs and medical devices. Importers, Customs Brokers and other stakeholders must upload mandatory compliance documents on e-SANCHIT to support expedited clearance. The verification requirement applies to the seven product categories covered by the prescribed checklists and takes effect immediately.

ICD-bound containers selected for scanning may be scanned at a Mobile Scanner regardless of their original allocation to a Drive Through Scanner, without further permission from the Container Scanning Division. Port Terminal Operators must ensure scanning before onward movement: containers from BMCT may use the nearest Mobile Scanner or DTCS02, while other terminals must use the designated Mobile Scanners. Containers reported clean are released under prescribed Customs procedures; suspicious containers must move to the nominated CFS for 100% examination. Operators must maintain records and submit consolidated weekly scanning reports each Monday. The arrangement takes immediate effect.