https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80505 The tribunal ruled that the seizure and confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act were unjustified due to lack of definitive evidence of smuggling. The burden of proof remained with the department, which failed to establish clandestine importation. The tribunal distinguished the present case from Jain Enterprises, emphasizing the need for clear evidence of smuggling beyond mere possession of foreign-marked goods. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, with most goods released to the appellant except for Pakistani coins, which remained confiscated. en-us Wed, 28 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:11:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80505 The tribunal ruled that the seizure and confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act were unjustified due to lack of definitive evidence of smuggling. The burden of proof remained with the department, which failed to establish clandestine importation. The tribunal distinguished the present case from Jain Enterprises, emphasizing the need for clear evidence of smuggling beyond mere possession of foreign-marked goods. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, with most goods released to the appellant except for Pakistani coins, which remained confiscated. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 28 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80505