https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167502 Penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustained on the basis of recovery of foreign gold from the appellant and the surrounding circumstances. The contemporaneous mahazar, the attestation and testimony of railway officials who witnessed the seizure, and the appellant's failure to protest at remand or thereafter were treated as sufficient to establish recovery from his person. The Tribunal held that the Department could rely on surrounding circumstances and the presumptions reflected in Sections 106 and 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, even without invoking Section 123 of the Customs Act, and that the adjudication standard was preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. en-us Wed, 15 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2014 16:38:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167502 Penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustained on the basis of recovery of foreign gold from the appellant and the surrounding circumstances. The contemporaneous mahazar, the attestation and testimony of railway officials who witnessed the seizure, and the appellant's failure to protest at remand or thereafter were treated as sufficient to establish recovery from his person. The Tribunal held that the Department could rely on surrounding circumstances and the presumptions reflected in Sections 106 and 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, even without invoking Section 123 of the Customs Act, and that the adjudication standard was preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 15 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167502