https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211283 Possession of gold and silver bars seized from a house, once proved, triggered the Customs Act presumption of culpable mental state under Section 138A, and that presumption was not rebutted by admissible evidence; liability under Section 135(1)(b) was therefore sustained. Statements recorded under Section 108 could not be used as substantive evidence in the respondent's favour where the maker was not examined and the requirements of Section 138B were not met, and unproved receipts or statements were insufficient to displace the prosecution case. The acquittal under Section 135(1)(a) was maintained, and objections to sanction and the charge were rejected because no failure of justice was shown. en-us Wed, 06 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211283 Possession of gold and silver bars seized from a house, once proved, triggered the Customs Act presumption of culpable mental state under Section 138A, and that presumption was not rebutted by admissible evidence; liability under Section 135(1)(b) was therefore sustained. Statements recorded under Section 108 could not be used as substantive evidence in the respondent's favour where the maker was not examined and the requirements of Section 138B were not met, and unproved receipts or statements were insufficient to displace the prosecution case. The acquittal under Section 135(1)(a) was maintained, and objections to sanction and the charge were rejected because no failure of justice was shown. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 06 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211283