https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251350 For goods not covered by Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Department must first prove smuggling by applying the general burden of proof under Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 106 may then shift the onus to the possessor when lawful possession or acquisition lies especially within that person's knowledge. On the stated facts, foreign markings, possession of the goods, and absence of supporting purchase or duty-paid documents were treated as sufficient prima facie circumstances to shift the burden. The possessor failed to establish lawful acquisition, so the goods were held smuggled and liable to confiscation, and the confiscation orders were restored. en-us Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Sep 2014 14:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251350 For goods not covered by Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Department must first prove smuggling by applying the general burden of proof under Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 106 may then shift the onus to the possessor when lawful possession or acquisition lies especially within that person's knowledge. On the stated facts, foreign markings, possession of the goods, and absence of supporting purchase or duty-paid documents were treated as sufficient prima facie circumstances to shift the burden. The possessor failed to establish lawful acquisition, so the goods were held smuggled and liable to confiscation, and the confiscation orders were restored. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251350