https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92131 Confiscation, penalty and duty demand on a video camera were found unsustainable because the show-cause notice did not clearly establish contravention of Notification No. 9/96-Cus. or allege with specificity that the goods were imported from Nepal. The Department also relied on a vague report stating only that the baggage receipt "appears to be fake," which did not conclusively prove falsity. Once that report was disregarded, no evidence remained to prove the camera was smuggled. The burden of proving smuggling rested on the Department, especially where the goods were not shown to attract the statutory presumption. en-us Thu, 17 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:35:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92131 Confiscation, penalty and duty demand on a video camera were found unsustainable because the show-cause notice did not clearly establish contravention of Notification No. 9/96-Cus. or allege with specificity that the goods were imported from Nepal. The Department also relied on a vague report stating only that the baggage receipt "appears to be fake," which did not conclusively prove falsity. Once that report was disregarded, no evidence remained to prove the camera was smuggled. The burden of proving smuggling rested on the Department, especially where the goods were not shown to attract the statutory presumption. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 17 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92131