https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211985 Where goods were first seized by police and later handed over to Customs, no fresh seizure arose under customs law for shifting the burden of proving smuggling. The police seizure divested the possessor of custody, and transfer of that custody to Customs did not revive a burden-shifting presumption. Because the goods were non-notified, available in the market, and the respondent claimed purchase from another person, the revenue could not rely on the burden rule. The Tribunal's setting aside of confiscation and penalty was upheld, and no substantial question of law arose. en-us Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Apr 2012 17:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211985 Where goods were first seized by police and later handed over to Customs, no fresh seizure arose under customs law for shifting the burden of proving smuggling. The police seizure divested the possessor of custody, and transfer of that custody to Customs did not revive a burden-shifting presumption. Because the goods were non-notified, available in the market, and the respondent claimed purchase from another person, the revenue could not rely on the burden rule. The Tribunal's setting aside of confiscation and penalty was upheld, and no substantial question of law arose. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211985