<?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>2024 (12) TMI 1250 - ROUSE AVENUE COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763670</link>
    <description>Documents sought to be introduced under Section 311 CrPC were found relevant to allegations of suppression of the true thickness of imported goods and consequent duty evasion, so their production was permitted. The stage of trial did not bar consideration of the material, and the accused&#039;s right of cross-examination remained available. Objections based on delay, alleged surprise to the defence, and admissibility were treated as separate from the threshold issue of relevance at that stage. Questions whether the documents would ultimately be proved as primary or secondary evidence, and whether they would satisfy evidentiary requirements, were left for later determination. The application was allowed with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Dec 2024 08:45:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=784460" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 1250 - ROUSE AVENUE COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763670</link>
      <description>Documents sought to be introduced under Section 311 CrPC were found relevant to allegations of suppression of the true thickness of imported goods and consequent duty evasion, so their production was permitted. The stage of trial did not bar consideration of the material, and the accused&#039;s right of cross-examination remained available. Objections based on delay, alleged surprise to the defence, and admissibility were treated as separate from the threshold issue of relevance at that stage. Questions whether the documents would ultimately be proved as primary or secondary evidence, and whether they would satisfy evidentiary requirements, were left for later determination. The application was allowed with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763670</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>