https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408690 Denial of access to CCTV footage that was material to the noticees' defence prejudiced fair adjudication under Articles 14 and 21, and the absence of that official evidence justified an adverse inference under Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The adjudicatory process could not proceed as though the withheld material did not exist. On consequential relief, gold was treated as regulated rather than intrinsically prohibited, and electronic goods were not prohibited items; the customs authority was required to decide whether the goods should be re-exported or cleared on duty payment. The petitioners were also permitted to seek duplicate passports, subject to ordinary formalities. en-us Mon, 26 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Feb 2022 15:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408690 Denial of access to CCTV footage that was material to the noticees' defence prejudiced fair adjudication under Articles 14 and 21, and the absence of that official evidence justified an adverse inference under Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The adjudicatory process could not proceed as though the withheld material did not exist. On consequential relief, gold was treated as regulated rather than intrinsically prohibited, and electronic goods were not prohibited items; the customs authority was required to decide whether the goods should be re-exported or cleared on duty payment. The petitioners were also permitted to seek duplicate passports, subject to ordinary formalities. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 26 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408690