Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.46 seconds)Section 108 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Customs Act, 1962
Section 130 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 4 August, 1969
11.4 Furthermore, we find the Learned Tribunal's invocation of the
"Venial Breach" doctrine from Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of
Orissa (supra) to be wholly misplaced. The ratio in Hindustan
30
CUSTA 30 OF 2025 & CUSTA 31 OF 2025
Steel protects bona fide technical errors where there is no
contumacious conduct. However, the total failure to prove the
legal origin of two kilograms of industrial-grade bullion is a
foundational failure of proof, not a technicality.
Commissioner Of Customs vs Om Prakash Khatri on 1 March, 2019
11.3 Following the ratio of the Kerala High Court in Commissioner
of Customs v. Om Prakash Khatri [2019 (366) E.L.T. 402
(Ker)], we hold that high purity acts as a "silent but
formidable rebuttal" to any claim of indigenous origin. As
observed in Paragraph 19 of the said judgment, such purity
constitutes potent circumstantial evidence of foreign origin
when the possessor fails to establish industrial provenance. In
the absence of a "Melting Memo" or "Refinery Certificate," the
Respondents' paper trail is effectively a "trail to nowhere."