https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82275 Notified goods bearing foreign markings were treated as smuggled where seizure was based on reasonable belief, the appellants admitted foreign origin, and no reliable proof of lawful import or acquisition was produced. The statutory burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 therefore remained undischarged, supporting confiscation. On penalty, the presence of the appellants' consultant at joint inspection and return of some identified articles undermined the plea of denial of hearing; Section 112 was applied because the appellants were concerned with carrying smuggled goods, though the penalty was reduced on the facts. The ratio emphasises burden-shifting for notified goods and the sustainability of confiscation and penalty when rebuttal fails. en-us Mon, 30 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jul 2011 10:52:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82275 Notified goods bearing foreign markings were treated as smuggled where seizure was based on reasonable belief, the appellants admitted foreign origin, and no reliable proof of lawful import or acquisition was produced. The statutory burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 therefore remained undischarged, supporting confiscation. On penalty, the presence of the appellants' consultant at joint inspection and return of some identified articles undermined the plea of denial of hearing; Section 112 was applied because the appellants were concerned with carrying smuggled goods, though the penalty was reduced on the facts. The ratio emphasises burden-shifting for notified goods and the sustainability of confiscation and penalty when rebuttal fails. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 30 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82275