https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82339 For non-notified goods under the Customs Act, mere possession of foreign-marked items or an admission of import did not by itself establish smuggling; the department retained the initial burden of proof, so confiscation of those items was set aside and release ordered. For notified goods seized on a reasonable belief of smuggling, the statutory burden shifted to the appellant, who failed to rebut it, so confiscation was upheld. Relief was moderated by permitting redemption on a reduced fine and by reducing the penalty, reflecting the mixed result on the two categories of goods. en-us Wed, 21 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jul 2011 13:52:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82339 For non-notified goods under the Customs Act, mere possession of foreign-marked items or an admission of import did not by itself establish smuggling; the department retained the initial burden of proof, so confiscation of those items was set aside and release ordered. For notified goods seized on a reasonable belief of smuggling, the statutory burden shifted to the appellant, who failed to rebut it, so confiscation was upheld. Relief was moderated by permitting redemption on a reduced fine and by reducing the penalty, reflecting the mixed result on the two categories of goods. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 21 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82339