https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43957 Retrospective application of Section 123(1) of the Customs Act to goods seized before the notification was issued was upheld as a procedural rule. Article 20(1) did not apply because the matter did not involve conviction or punishment for an offence. Under Article 21, the provision was treated as creating only a rebuttable presumption that the goods were smuggled, with an opportunity for the possessor to rebut it, similar to presumptions under the Evidence Act. On that basis, the retrospective operation was not regarded as unfair, unjust, or unreasonable, and the constitutional challenge failed. en-us Tue, 02 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:12:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43957 Retrospective application of Section 123(1) of the Customs Act to goods seized before the notification was issued was upheld as a procedural rule. Article 20(1) did not apply because the matter did not involve conviction or punishment for an offence. Under Article 21, the provision was treated as creating only a rebuttable presumption that the goods were smuggled, with an opportunity for the possessor to rebut it, similar to presumptions under the Evidence Act. On that basis, the retrospective operation was not regarded as unfair, unjust, or unreasonable, and the constitutional challenge failed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 02 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43957