https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177816 Goods seized by a customs officer acting under the customs law attract the statutory burden-of-proof rule even if the seizure papers incidentally refer to criminal procedure, because the true character of the proceedings remains customs enforcement. The note also states that a later plea of substitution of the seized gold was rejected where custody was continuous, seals remained intact, and the bar descriptions consistently matched the seizure record. On natural justice, it explains that adjudication is fair if the material relied on is supplied for comment and a meaningful opportunity is given to meet it; formal cross-examination is not always required. en-us Fri, 21 May 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:45:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177816 Goods seized by a customs officer acting under the customs law attract the statutory burden-of-proof rule even if the seizure papers incidentally refer to criminal procedure, because the true character of the proceedings remains customs enforcement. The note also states that a later plea of substitution of the seized gold was rejected where custody was continuous, seals remained intact, and the bar descriptions consistently matched the seizure record. On natural justice, it explains that adjudication is fair if the material relied on is supplied for comment and a meaningful opportunity is given to meet it; formal cross-examination is not always required. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 21 May 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177816