<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Goods Seizure Case: Court Upholds Tribunal&#039;s Decision Based on Evidence, Denies Appeal on Substantial Question of Law.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83234</link>
    <description>Seizure of goods as smuggled into the country from Myanmar u/s 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The burden of proof lies on the respondent u/s 123 to show that the seized areca nuts are not smuggled goods, or on the Department u/s 111 to establish that the seized betel nuts are of foreign origin and smuggled before confiscation. The High Court emphasized that the existence of a substantial question of law is a prerequisite for exercising jurisdiction u/s 130. The Court examined whether the Appellate Tribunal ignored material evidence or acted without evidence, which could constitute a substantial question of law. The Court analyzed the evidence, including the proximity to the international border, lack of foreign markings, absence of expert op.....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2024 08:40:49 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2024 08:40:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=778332" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Goods Seizure Case: Court Upholds Tribunal&#039;s Decision Based on Evidence, Denies Appeal on Substantial Question of Law.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83234</link>
      <description>Seizure of goods as smuggled into the country from Myanmar u/s 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The burden of proof lies on the respondent u/s 123 to show that the seized areca nuts are not smuggled goods, or on the Department u/s 111 to establish that the seized betel nuts are of foreign origin and smuggled before confiscation. The High Court emphasized that the existence of a substantial question of law is a prerequisite for exercising jurisdiction u/s 130. The Court examined whether the Appellate Tribunal ignored material evidence or acted without evidence, which could constitute a substantial question of law. The Court analyzed the evidence, including the proximity to the international border, lack of foreign markings, absence of expert op.....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2024 08:40:49 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83234</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>