https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45682 The statutory presumption under section 178-A of the Sea Customs Act applies only where seized goods are held on a reasonable belief that they are smuggled; on the materials, including repudiation by the alleged buyer and the commercially improbable transaction, that condition was satisfied for the seized gold. Reliance on the Madras dealer's statements did not breach natural justice because the petitioner was told the substance of that material in the show-cause notice and later received a copy, with no shown procedural prejudice from the absence of cross-examination. The confiscation order was also not shown to be perverse or unreasonable, as the surrounding facts supported the inference that the gold was contraband, so writ interference under Article 226 was declined and confiscation was upheld. en-us Fri, 20 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:09:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45682 The statutory presumption under section 178-A of the Sea Customs Act applies only where seized goods are held on a reasonable belief that they are smuggled; on the materials, including repudiation by the alleged buyer and the commercially improbable transaction, that condition was satisfied for the seized gold. Reliance on the Madras dealer's statements did not breach natural justice because the petitioner was told the substance of that material in the show-cause notice and later received a copy, with no shown procedural prejudice from the absence of cross-examination. The confiscation order was also not shown to be perverse or unreasonable, as the surrounding facts supported the inference that the gold was contraband, so writ interference under Article 226 was declined and confiscation was upheld. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 20 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45682