<?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>2002 (6) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47136</link>
    <description>Foreign-origin gold biscuits concealed in a vehicle attracted the reverse burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act because the seizure circumstances, the accused&#039;s admission, and the officer&#039;s reasonable belief supported the inference of smuggled origin; the retraction was not proved sufficient to displace that burden. The conviction could not, however, be sustained under Section 135(1)(i) without proof that the gold exceeded the statutory value threshold on the relevant date, as market value and purity were not independently established. Conviction was therefore confined to Section 135(1)(ii), with the higher clause set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:47:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85655" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (6) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47136</link>
      <description>Foreign-origin gold biscuits concealed in a vehicle attracted the reverse burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act because the seizure circumstances, the accused&#039;s admission, and the officer&#039;s reasonable belief supported the inference of smuggled origin; the retraction was not proved sufficient to displace that burden. The conviction could not, however, be sustained under Section 135(1)(i) without proof that the gold exceeded the statutory value threshold on the relevant date, as market value and purity were not independently established. Conviction was therefore confined to Section 135(1)(ii), with the higher clause set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47136</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>