<?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>1990 (7) TMI 115 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42812</link>
    <description>Conscious possession with knowledge or reason to believe that goods are smuggled is required for liability under customs law; mere physical custody is insufficient unless dominion or control and the requisite mental element are shown. On the facts discussed, the first accused&#039;s conviction was sustained because seizure evidence, corroborative records, statements under section 108 and the surrounding circumstances supported knowledge and attracted the statutory presumption. The second accused&#039;s conviction was set aside because the record showed only physical possession, without proof of conscious control or knowledge. The sanction for prosecution was found valid, and enhancement of sentence was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:56:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81341" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (7) TMI 115 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42812</link>
      <description>Conscious possession with knowledge or reason to believe that goods are smuggled is required for liability under customs law; mere physical custody is insufficient unless dominion or control and the requisite mental element are shown. On the facts discussed, the first accused&#039;s conviction was sustained because seizure evidence, corroborative records, statements under section 108 and the surrounding circumstances supported knowledge and attracted the statutory presumption. The second accused&#039;s conviction was set aside because the record showed only physical possession, without proof of conscious control or knowledge. The sanction for prosecution was found valid, and enhancement of sentence was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42812</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>