https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114122 Ball bearings not covered by Section 123 of the Customs Act required the Revenue to first prove that they were smuggled goods before any burden could shift to the person in possession. Mere absence of bills, or inability to identify the seller or broker, was insufficient to establish illicit import. Suspicion from surrounding circumstances could not replace proof. On that reasoning, the Revenue failed to discharge the initial burden, and confiscation and penalty were unsustainable. en-us Wed, 15 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 May 2012 13:44:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114122 Ball bearings not covered by Section 123 of the Customs Act required the Revenue to first prove that they were smuggled goods before any burden could shift to the person in possession. Mere absence of bills, or inability to identify the seller or broker, was insufficient to establish illicit import. Suspicion from surrounding circumstances could not replace proof. On that reasoning, the Revenue failed to discharge the initial burden, and confiscation and penalty were unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 15 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114122