https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332908 Foreign-marked gold bars subjected to customs action were not treated as seized from the police, because the goods had been kept in bank custody with liberty reserved to customs to take legal steps. The seizure was therefore held legally effective. On burden of proof, the Court held that the respondent had to prove lawful import or lawful purchase, since the gold bore foreign markings and the facts of acquisition were within the respondent's special knowledge. As no supporting evidence of purchase or source was produced, the inference of smuggled import was not rebutted. Confiscation and penalty were upheld, and the Tribunal's contrary view was set aside. en-us Tue, 27 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Apr 2017 12:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332908 Foreign-marked gold bars subjected to customs action were not treated as seized from the police, because the goods had been kept in bank custody with liberty reserved to customs to take legal steps. The seizure was therefore held legally effective. On burden of proof, the Court held that the respondent had to prove lawful import or lawful purchase, since the gold bore foreign markings and the facts of acquisition were within the respondent's special knowledge. As no supporting evidence of purchase or source was produced, the inference of smuggled import was not rebutted. Confiscation and penalty were upheld, and the Tribunal's contrary view was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 27 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332908