https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72381 Statements recorded by customs authorities during customs enquiry are not barred by Article 20(3) of the Constitution or Section 25 of the Evidence Act merely because an FIR exists, because a customs officer is not treated as a police officer for that purpose. The document also notes that objections about seizure by police, the availability of statutory presumptions under the Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act, conscious possession, benefit of doubt, and alleged variance from the show cause notice were treated as fact-based or vague contentions. On that basis, the reference applications failed because no referable question of law was shown. en-us Thu, 03 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 May 2011 10:54:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72381 Statements recorded by customs authorities during customs enquiry are not barred by Article 20(3) of the Constitution or Section 25 of the Evidence Act merely because an FIR exists, because a customs officer is not treated as a police officer for that purpose. The document also notes that objections about seizure by police, the availability of statutory presumptions under the Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act, conscious possession, benefit of doubt, and alleged variance from the show cause notice were treated as fact-based or vague contentions. On that basis, the reference applications failed because no referable question of law was shown. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 03 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72381