https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108796 The Department could not sustain confiscation or penalty because it failed to prove both the alleged seizure at Lahartara and the smuggled character of the goods. Independent neighbours and other evidence supported the appellants' version that the goods were taken from the house, while the Department's witnesses did not corroborate the panchnama. The goods were not shown to be notified or prohibited, so the statutory presumption under the Customs Act did not arise and the burden to prove illegal import remained on the Department. Purchase documents, the absence of inquiry from the alleged seller, and an involuntary confession further undermined the case. en-us Thu, 02 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:44:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108796 The Department could not sustain confiscation or penalty because it failed to prove both the alleged seizure at Lahartara and the smuggled character of the goods. Independent neighbours and other evidence supported the appellants' version that the goods were taken from the house, while the Department's witnesses did not corroborate the panchnama. The goods were not shown to be notified or prohibited, so the statutory presumption under the Customs Act did not arise and the burden to prove illegal import remained on the Department. Purchase documents, the absence of inquiry from the alleged seller, and an involuntary confession further undermined the case. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 02 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108796