https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88828 The appellate authority set aside the impugned order of penalty and confiscation of electronic goods, ruling in favor of the appellant. The decision emphasized the burden of proof on the department to establish smuggling in cases involving non-notified goods under the Customs Act, 1962. It highlighted the illegality of confiscation under Section 111(d) without sufficient evidence, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and due process. The appellant's appeal was allowed due to the lack of substantial evidence linking them to the smuggling of foreign goods, leading to the reversal of the adjudicating authority's decision. en-us Tue, 21 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:50:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88828 The appellate authority set aside the impugned order of penalty and confiscation of electronic goods, ruling in favor of the appellant. The decision emphasized the burden of proof on the department to establish smuggling in cases involving non-notified goods under the Customs Act, 1962. It highlighted the illegality of confiscation under Section 111(d) without sufficient evidence, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and due process. The appellant's appeal was allowed due to the lack of substantial evidence linking them to the smuggling of foreign goods, leading to the reversal of the adjudicating authority's decision. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 21 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88828