https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72333 Where seized turquoise were not covered by Section 123 or Chapter IVA of the Customs Act, the Department had to prove smuggled nature by reliable evidence. Recovery from residential premises, excess quantity over private records, and an appraiser's opinion of foreign origin were insufficient on their own, especially after the appellant produced documents explaining the goods. The Department treated those documents as an afterthought without testing their credibility. On those facts, the burden of proof remained undischarged and the material did not establish that the goods were smuggled or liable to confiscation. en-us Mon, 28 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 May 2011 16:18:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72333 Where seized turquoise were not covered by Section 123 or Chapter IVA of the Customs Act, the Department had to prove smuggled nature by reliable evidence. Recovery from residential premises, excess quantity over private records, and an appraiser's opinion of foreign origin were insufficient on their own, especially after the appellant produced documents explaining the goods. The Department treated those documents as an afterthought without testing their credibility. On those facts, the burden of proof remained undischarged and the material did not establish that the goods were smuggled or liable to confiscation. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 28 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72333