<?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 (5) TMI 193 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73141</link>
    <description>Recovery of foreign-marked gold biscuits from the appellant&#039;s bag, supported by the surrounding transport circumstances, a voluntary inculpatory statement and an unsubstantiated retraction, was treated as sufficient to establish conscious possession and involvement in procurement and transport. The statutory presumption applicable to notified goods seized on reasonable belief of smuggling operated against the appellant, sustaining liability under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The alleged non-issue of show cause notice did not vitiate the adjudication because notice was waived, the appellant participated in personal hearing through counsel, and no prejudice to defence was shown. Penalties were reduced on mitigating personal circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 May 2011 13:10:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111420" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (5) TMI 193 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73141</link>
      <description>Recovery of foreign-marked gold biscuits from the appellant&#039;s bag, supported by the surrounding transport circumstances, a voluntary inculpatory statement and an unsubstantiated retraction, was treated as sufficient to establish conscious possession and involvement in procurement and transport. The statutory presumption applicable to notified goods seized on reasonable belief of smuggling operated against the appellant, sustaining liability under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The alleged non-issue of show cause notice did not vitiate the adjudication because notice was waived, the appellant participated in personal hearing through counsel, and no prejudice to defence was shown. Penalties were reduced on mitigating personal circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73141</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>