https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199985 In proceedings under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, the statutory burden remained on Customs because the goods were not within Section 178-A. A possessor's inability to give a satisfactory explanation, or the Collector's disbelief of that explanation, could not substitute for affirmative proof that the goods were illicitly imported. Mere suspicion was insufficient to sustain confiscation or penalty. The merger objection also failed because the earlier appeal was not entertained on merits and was rejected for non-compliance with statutory conditions. The confiscation and penalty were therefore unsustainable, as the burden of proof had been wrongly cast on the petitioner. 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 In proceedings under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, the statutory burden remained on Customs because the goods were not within Section 178-A. A possessor's inability to give a satisfactory explanation, or the Collector's disbelief of that explanation, could not substitute for affirmative proof that the goods were illicitly imported. Mere suspicion was insufficient to sustain confiscation or penalty. The merger objection also failed because the earlier appeal was not entertained on merits and was rejected for non-compliance with statutory conditions. The confiscation and penalty were therefore unsustainable, as the burden of proof had been wrongly cast on the petitioner. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 15 Nov 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199985