https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105169 For a non-notified item under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the burden remained on the Revenue to prove that the seized goods were smuggled, and confiscation could not be upheld on mere allegation. A baggage receipt in the appellant's name, issued before the seizure and recording import of miscellaneous goods on payment of duty, was accepted as supporting lawful import. The absence of the exact description "Image Clock" in the receipt was not treated as adverse because the receipt was not limited to that item. On that basis, confiscation and personal penalty were set aside, and consequential relief followed. en-us Thu, 02 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:22:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105169 For a non-notified item under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the burden remained on the Revenue to prove that the seized goods were smuggled, and confiscation could not be upheld on mere allegation. A baggage receipt in the appellant's name, issued before the seizure and recording import of miscellaneous goods on payment of duty, was accepted as supporting lawful import. The absence of the exact description "Image Clock" in the receipt was not treated as adverse because the receipt was not limited to that item. On that basis, confiscation and personal penalty were set aside, and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 02 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105169