https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81823 A seized video camera was held not to be a notified item because the relevant list referred to a photographic camera and video cassettes, not a video camera. Applying common parlance, a photographic camera could not be treated as a video camera, and the fact that the article was old and used did not justify shifting the burden to the possessor. As the statutory burden under Section 11G(1) did not arise, confiscation and penalty were held unsustainable and the respondent succeeded. 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 seized video camera was held not to be a notified item because the relevant list referred to a photographic camera and video cassettes, not a video camera. Applying common parlance, a photographic camera could not be treated as a video camera, and the fact that the article was old and used did not justify shifting the burden to the possessor. As the statutory burden under Section 11G(1) did not arise, confiscation and penalty were held unsustainable and the respondent succeeded. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 16 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81823