https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274413 Preventive detention was held unsustainable where the Detaining Authority proceeded on the mistaken premise that Section 123 of the Customs Act shifted the burden to the detenu to explain seized gold biscuits, even though the gold was not seized from him and he had not claimed ownership. That erroneous assumption infected the grounds of detention and showed non-application of mind to the material and vital facts. The court stated that subjective satisfaction in preventive detention must still rest on relevant material and proper consideration of proximate facts; on that basis, the detention order was vitiated and could not stand. en-us Mon, 03 Jul 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Aug 2018 11:06:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274413 Preventive detention was held unsustainable where the Detaining Authority proceeded on the mistaken premise that Section 123 of the Customs Act shifted the burden to the detenu to explain seized gold biscuits, even though the gold was not seized from him and he had not claimed ownership. That erroneous assumption infected the grounds of detention and showed non-application of mind to the material and vital facts. The court stated that subjective satisfaction in preventive detention must still rest on relevant material and proper consideration of proximate facts; on that basis, the detention order was vitiated and could not stand. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 03 Jul 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274413