<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1987 (1) TMI 251 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72797</link>
    <description>Foreign origin and liable confiscation may be inferred from voluntary inculpatory statements and surrounding circumstances, even where the statutory presumption under Section 123 is not invoked. Here, foreign markings on the gold, alleged obliteration of those markings, and the failure to show lawful acquisition were treated as sufficient to sustain the customs charge; objections based on purity, size, weight, and notice vagueness were rejected. On penalty, the employee appellant was treated as a subordinate actor and the quantum was reduced because a comparable noticee had been penalised more lightly on similar facts. The substantive finding of contravention remained unchanged.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 May 2011 11:43:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111076" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (1) TMI 251 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72797</link>
      <description>Foreign origin and liable confiscation may be inferred from voluntary inculpatory statements and surrounding circumstances, even where the statutory presumption under Section 123 is not invoked. Here, foreign markings on the gold, alleged obliteration of those markings, and the failure to show lawful acquisition were treated as sufficient to sustain the customs charge; objections based on purity, size, weight, and notice vagueness were rejected. On penalty, the employee appellant was treated as a subordinate actor and the quantum was reduced because a comparable noticee had been penalised more lightly on similar facts. The substantive finding of contravention remained unchanged.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72797</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>