https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80244 The tribunal found that the department did not provide clear evidence that the goods were smuggled, shifting the burden of proof back to the department. As the appellant's admission did not conclusively prove smuggling and the circumstances were not sufficient, the imposition of penalty was deemed not in accordance with the law. Consequently, the confiscation of the goods and the penalty imposed on the appellant were set aside, and the confiscated goods were ordered to be returned to the appellant. en-us Mon, 11 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:21:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80244 The tribunal found that the department did not provide clear evidence that the goods were smuggled, shifting the burden of proof back to the department. As the appellant's admission did not conclusively prove smuggling and the circumstances were not sufficient, the imposition of penalty was deemed not in accordance with the law. Consequently, the confiscation of the goods and the penalty imposed on the appellant were set aside, and the confiscated goods were ordered to be returned to the appellant. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 11 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80244