https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214722 The Appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision that the seized goods were synthetic fabrics subject to the Customs Act provisions. The burden of proof regarding the nature of the goods rested on the Appellant, who failed to provide substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of smuggling under Section 123. The court upheld the findings that the goods were made mainly of synthetic yarn, supporting the confiscation under Sections 111(b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The lack of contradictory evidence led to the dismissal of the Appeal. en-us Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jul 2012 18:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214722 The Appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision that the seized goods were synthetic fabrics subject to the Customs Act provisions. The burden of proof regarding the nature of the goods rested on the Appellant, who failed to provide substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of smuggling under Section 123. The court upheld the findings that the goods were made mainly of synthetic yarn, supporting the confiscation under Sections 111(b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The lack of contradictory evidence led to the dismissal of the Appeal. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214722