https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111713 For non-notified goods, Section 123 of the Customs Act did not shift the burden of proof to the person from whom the goods were recovered, so the Revenue had to produce tangible evidence that the goods were smuggled. Foreign origin alone, even with purchases traced to identified persons, was insufficient to establish a tainted or smuggled character. The confiscation therefore could not be sustained because the Revenue failed to discharge the burden of proof. en-us Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:16:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111713 For non-notified goods, Section 123 of the Customs Act did not shift the burden of proof to the person from whom the goods were recovered, so the Revenue had to produce tangible evidence that the goods were smuggled. Foreign origin alone, even with purchases traced to identified persons, was insufficient to establish a tainted or smuggled character. The confiscation therefore could not be sustained because the Revenue failed to discharge the burden of proof. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111713