Goods Seizure Case: Court Upholds Tribunal's Decision Based on Evidence, Denies Appeal on Substantial Question of Law.

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws →

Goods Seizure Case: Court Upholds Tribunal's Decision Based on Evidence, Denies Appeal on Substantial Question of Law.

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....Seizure of goods as smuggled into the country from Myanmar u/s 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The burden of proof lies on the respondent u/s 123 to show that the seized areca nuts are not smuggled goods, or on the Department u/s 111 to establish that the seized betel nuts are of foreign origin and smuggled before confiscation. The High Court emphasized that the existence of a substantial question of law is a prerequisite for exercising jurisdiction u/s 130. The Court examined whether the Appellate Tribunal ignored material evidence or acted without evidence, which could constitute a substantial question of law. The Court analyzed the evidence, including the proximity to the international border, lack of foreign markings, absence of expert op.........

Contact Us At :

FAQs :

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Goods Seizure Case: Court Upholds Tribunal's Decision Based on Evidence, Denies Appeal on Substantial Question of Law.