https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167512 For non-notified goods under the Customs Act, the Department retained the burden of proving foreign origin and smuggled import because the statutory presumption under Section 123 did not apply. That burden was held capable of being discharged through cumulative circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's inculpatory statement, the statement of the Sri Lankan national, attempted dispatch of part of the consignment under a fictitious description, and a false explanation about purchase through an intermediary. The retraction of the confession was given little weight in the absence of a prompt complaint before the Magistrate and in view of the surrounding circumstances. The goods were found liable to confiscation, and the redemption fine and penalty were sustained, subject to reduction. en-us Fri, 15 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2014 10:24:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167512 For non-notified goods under the Customs Act, the Department retained the burden of proving foreign origin and smuggled import because the statutory presumption under Section 123 did not apply. That burden was held capable of being discharged through cumulative circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's inculpatory statement, the statement of the Sri Lankan national, attempted dispatch of part of the consignment under a fictitious description, and a false explanation about purchase through an intermediary. The retraction of the confession was given little weight in the absence of a prompt complaint before the Magistrate and in view of the surrounding circumstances. The goods were found liable to confiscation, and the redemption fine and penalty were sustained, subject to reduction. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 15 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167512