https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80150 The Department sustained confiscation of watch movements and penalty by disproving the appellant's claim of lawful purchase through photocopied bills and challans, which did not relate to the seized goods. Expert evidence further indicated that the movements were assembled in a factory and of the kind commonly smuggled into India, and no effective rebuttal or cross-examination was pursued. Although the goods were not notified under Section 123, the initial burden was treated as discharged once the Department rebutted the documents and produced expert material, shifting the burden to the appellant to prove licit acquisition. Confiscation under Section 111(d) and the penalty were therefore upheld. en-us Wed, 26 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:05:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80150 The Department sustained confiscation of watch movements and penalty by disproving the appellant's claim of lawful purchase through photocopied bills and challans, which did not relate to the seized goods. Expert evidence further indicated that the movements were assembled in a factory and of the kind commonly smuggled into India, and no effective rebuttal or cross-examination was pursued. Although the goods were not notified under Section 123, the initial burden was treated as discharged once the Department rebutted the documents and produced expert material, shifting the burden to the appellant to prove licit acquisition. Confiscation under Section 111(d) and the penalty were therefore upheld. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 26 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80150