https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80360 Confiscation of watches and watch movements under customs law was considered unsustainable where the department relied mainly on presumption, alleged concealment, and disputed seizure circumstances rather than proved foreign origin or illegal importation. The material was said to indicate spurious watches that could have been assembled in India, while an unsupported opinion that the movements were not manufactured in India was insufficient to establish smuggling. Once illegal importation was not proved, the notified-goods procedure and burden-shifting rule did not assist the department, and the confiscation provisions under the Customs Act were not supported by evidence even on a preponderance standard. en-us Thu, 08 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:58:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80360 Confiscation of watches and watch movements under customs law was considered unsustainable where the department relied mainly on presumption, alleged concealment, and disputed seizure circumstances rather than proved foreign origin or illegal importation. The material was said to indicate spurious watches that could have been assembled in India, while an unsupported opinion that the movements were not manufactured in India was insufficient to establish smuggling. Once illegal importation was not proved, the notified-goods procedure and burden-shifting rule did not assist the department, and the confiscation provisions under the Customs Act were not supported by evidence even on a preponderance standard. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 08 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80360