https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199985 The court allowed the petition challenging the order of the Collector of Central Excise confiscating goods and imposing a penalty. It held that the burden of proof under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act lies with the Collector, not the possessor of goods. The court emphasized the need for concrete evidence to establish illicit importation and clarified that the rejection of an appeal petition does not merge the original authority's order. The court ruled that in cases involving restricted goods, Customs authorities cannot presume illicit importation solely based on the possessor's failure to prove licit origin. en-us Thu, 15 Nov 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Mar 2018 14:10:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199985 The court allowed the petition challenging the order of the Collector of Central Excise confiscating goods and imposing a penalty. It held that the burden of proof under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act lies with the Collector, not the possessor of goods. The court emphasized the need for concrete evidence to establish illicit importation and clarified that the rejection of an appeal petition does not merge the original authority's order. The court ruled that in cases involving restricted goods, Customs authorities cannot presume illicit importation solely based on the possessor's failure to prove licit origin. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 15 Nov 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199985