https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202955 Revenue bore the initial burden of proving that seized electronic goods were smuggled before confiscation could be sustained, and that burden did not shift to the respondent under the special-knowledge principle in Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The goods were treated as neither notified nor prohibited, and the fact-finding authority found no sufficient material showing a smuggled character. Mere possession of imported branded goods, even with an unexplained source of procurement, was held insufficient to prove clandestine import. The admissions relied upon were not treated as a clear concession of smuggling, so confiscation and penalty were held unsustainable. en-us Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202955 Revenue bore the initial burden of proving that seized electronic goods were smuggled before confiscation could be sustained, and that burden did not shift to the respondent under the special-knowledge principle in Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The goods were treated as neither notified nor prohibited, and the fact-finding authority found no sufficient material showing a smuggled character. Mere possession of imported branded goods, even with an unexplained source of procurement, was held insufficient to prove clandestine import. The admissions relied upon were not treated as a clear concession of smuggling, so confiscation and penalty were held unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202955