<?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>2010 (2) TMI 618 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201864</link>
    <description>Recovery of gold biscuits was treated as proved on the testimony of customs and border security officials, even without independent witnesses, because independent assistance was not practically available at the place of recovery. The court accepted the evidence that the articles were gold and that the accused failed to dislodge the prosecution case that the goods were recovered from their possession. Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, signed or thumb-marked by the accused and unsupported by any material showing coercion, were held not to be barred by Section 24 of the Evidence Act and remained admissible against the accused. On that basis, the conviction and sentence were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175456" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 618 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201864</link>
      <description>Recovery of gold biscuits was treated as proved on the testimony of customs and border security officials, even without independent witnesses, because independent assistance was not practically available at the place of recovery. The court accepted the evidence that the articles were gold and that the accused failed to dislodge the prosecution case that the goods were recovered from their possession. Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, signed or thumb-marked by the accused and unsupported by any material showing coercion, were held not to be barred by Section 24 of the Evidence Act and remained admissible against the accused. On that basis, the conviction and sentence were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201864</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>