https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108868 Foreign origin alone was insufficient to prove smuggling of ball bearings or justify confiscation and penalties. Because the goods were not notified under section 123, the burden of proving lawful import did not shift to the possessor merely due to their presence in the Indian market. The authorities relied on no direct or circumstantial evidence of illegal import, and an unverified explanation for acquisition did not amount to proof of smuggling. Partial documentary support accepted for some seized goods further showed that non-verification of the remaining claim could not sustain a finding of smuggling. Confiscation under section 111(d) and penalties under section 112 were therefore unsustainable. en-us Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Apr 2012 13:03:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108868 Foreign origin alone was insufficient to prove smuggling of ball bearings or justify confiscation and penalties. Because the goods were not notified under section 123, the burden of proving lawful import did not shift to the possessor merely due to their presence in the Indian market. The authorities relied on no direct or circumstantial evidence of illegal import, and an unverified explanation for acquisition did not amount to proof of smuggling. Partial documentary support accepted for some seized goods further showed that non-verification of the remaining claim could not sustain a finding of smuggling. Confiscation under section 111(d) and penalties under section 112 were therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108868