https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42992 Customs prosecutions require proof that the seizing officer formed a reasonable belief, on material, that the goods were liable to confiscation; foreign marking alone was held insufficient to establish smuggling or prohibited status. Retraction of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act also makes reliance unsafe unless independent corroboration exists. The text further notes that liability cannot be fastened on other accused without proof of possession, conspiracy or abetment. On these principles, the prosecution was treated as failing to prove the essential ingredients of the customs and import-control offences, and the acquittal was affirmed. en-us Wed, 10 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:17:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42992 Customs prosecutions require proof that the seizing officer formed a reasonable belief, on material, that the goods were liable to confiscation; foreign marking alone was held insufficient to establish smuggling or prohibited status. Retraction of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act also makes reliance unsafe unless independent corroboration exists. The text further notes that liability cannot be fastened on other accused without proof of possession, conspiracy or abetment. On these principles, the prosecution was treated as failing to prove the essential ingredients of the customs and import-control offences, and the acquittal was affirmed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 10 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42992