https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109233 The Department must prove smuggling before confiscation or penalty can be sustained; foreign markings alone do not create a presumption that seized electronic goods are smuggled. The initial burden remained on the Department, and it failed to produce evidence discharging that burden. The appellant was not required to prove lawful acquisition merely because purchase documents were not accepted, especially where the goods were used and freely available in the market. On those facts, confiscation under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act and penalty under Section 112(b) were unsustainable. en-us Fri, 24 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Apr 2012 17:41:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109233 The Department must prove smuggling before confiscation or penalty can be sustained; foreign markings alone do not create a presumption that seized electronic goods are smuggled. The initial burden remained on the Department, and it failed to produce evidence discharging that burden. The appellant was not required to prove lawful acquisition merely because purchase documents were not accepted, especially where the goods were used and freely available in the market. On those facts, confiscation under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act and penalty under Section 112(b) were unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 24 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109233