https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45128 Article 32 was held not to be a substitute for challenging a quasi-judicial customs confiscation order made within jurisdiction under a valid statute, absent any jurisdictional defect infringing a fundamental right. On the facts, coordinated movements of gold, seizure of marked imported bars, and linked statements were enough to create a reasonable belief that the goods were smuggled, justifying invocation of Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and shifting the burden to the claimant. In the absence of jurisdictional error, the Court declined to interfere with the penalty and confiscation. en-us Mon, 17 Sep 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jul 2010 16:18:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45128 Article 32 was held not to be a substitute for challenging a quasi-judicial customs confiscation order made within jurisdiction under a valid statute, absent any jurisdictional defect infringing a fundamental right. On the facts, coordinated movements of gold, seizure of marked imported bars, and linked statements were enough to create a reasonable belief that the goods were smuggled, justifying invocation of Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and shifting the burden to the claimant. In the absence of jurisdictional error, the Court declined to interfere with the penalty and confiscation. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 17 Sep 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45128