https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81823 A video camera was not treated as a notified photographic camera under the relevant notified list, which expressly included photographic cameras and video cassettes but not video cameras. Applying common parlance, the two items were regarded as distinct. Because the seized camera was old and used and the record did not support shifting the burden to its possessor, the statutory burden to establish lawful origin under Section 11G(1) did not arise. Confiscation of the camera and the related penalty were therefore unsustainable. en-us Mon, 16 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:25:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81823 A video camera was not treated as a notified photographic camera under the relevant notified list, which expressly included photographic cameras and video cassettes but not video cameras. Applying common parlance, the two items were regarded as distinct. Because the seized camera was old and used and the record did not support shifting the burden to its possessor, the statutory burden to establish lawful origin under Section 11G(1) did not arise. Confiscation of the camera and the related penalty were therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 16 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81823