https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80746 Penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act was unsustainable where the goods were not notified under Section 123 and no statutory presumption of smuggling arose. The Department had to first establish a prima facie case that the goods were smuggled and that the person proceeded against had conscious possession or reason to believe they were liable to confiscation. Mere foreign markings, unexplained possession, or absence of documents was insufficient without proof of clandestine import or violation of import restrictions. On the facts, the initial burden was not discharged, so the penalty was set aside while confiscation remained undisturbed. en-us Fri, 20 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:57:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80746 Penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act was unsustainable where the goods were not notified under Section 123 and no statutory presumption of smuggling arose. The Department had to first establish a prima facie case that the goods were smuggled and that the person proceeded against had conscious possession or reason to believe they were liable to confiscation. Mere foreign markings, unexplained possession, or absence of documents was insufficient without proof of clandestine import or violation of import restrictions. On the facts, the initial burden was not discharged, so the penalty was set aside while confiscation remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 20 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80746