<?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>1981 (1) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41483</link>
    <description>Search irregularities under the Customs Act do not by themselves vitiate seizure or trial where the officer was otherwise empowered and the seizure was made under criminal process. The seized bars were treated as primary gold of foreign origin because chemical evidence, witness testimony, physical characteristics, and foreign markings supported a reasonable belief of smuggling, shifting the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act to the possessor. Unexplained possession was sufficient to sustain conviction for unlawful possession of primary gold and for knowingly dealing with gold liable to confiscation, but the absence of proof of carrying on gold business or transactions defeated the separate trading-related count.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2010 16:48:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80014" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (1) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41483</link>
      <description>Search irregularities under the Customs Act do not by themselves vitiate seizure or trial where the officer was otherwise empowered and the seizure was made under criminal process. The seized bars were treated as primary gold of foreign origin because chemical evidence, witness testimony, physical characteristics, and foreign markings supported a reasonable belief of smuggling, shifting the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act to the possessor. Unexplained possession was sufficient to sustain conviction for unlawful possession of primary gold and for knowingly dealing with gold liable to confiscation, but the absence of proof of carrying on gold business or transactions defeated the separate trading-related count.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41483</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>