<?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>1971 (7) TMI 57 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45638</link>
    <description>Secondary evidence of official foreign public documents is admissible where the originals are identified and the copies or photographs are shown to have been taken from those originals, so the Hong Kong seizure documents could be received in evidence. Prosecution sanction under the Customs Act was upheld because it was proved through the issuing Customs officer and was not effectively challenged, making it valid and competent. On the evidence of shipment, concealment of opium in bags, and absence of any reasonable likelihood of tampering, the concurrent findings were not disturbed in revision, and the conviction and sentence remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:08:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84165" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (7) TMI 57 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45638</link>
      <description>Secondary evidence of official foreign public documents is admissible where the originals are identified and the copies or photographs are shown to have been taken from those originals, so the Hong Kong seizure documents could be received in evidence. Prosecution sanction under the Customs Act was upheld because it was proved through the issuing Customs officer and was not effectively challenged, making it valid and competent. On the evidence of shipment, concealment of opium in bags, and absence of any reasonable likelihood of tampering, the concurrent findings were not disturbed in revision, and the conviction and sentence remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45638</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>