https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288844 In confiscation proceedings under the Sea Customs Act, where Section 178A did not apply to the seized dye-stuffs, the ordinary burden remained on the customs authorities to prove illicit importation under Section 167(8). Mere foreign manufacture of the goods, or their presence in the petitioner's possession, was insufficient to shift the burden to the petitioner. Section 106 of the Evidence Act could not be used to displace the prosecution's general burden where the facts of importation were not specially within the petitioner's knowledge. The theory that confiscation could proceed against offending goods without proof of unlawful importation was rejected. The order of confiscation was therefore unsustainable. en-us Fri, 03 Jan 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Jul 2020 10:52:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288844 In confiscation proceedings under the Sea Customs Act, where Section 178A did not apply to the seized dye-stuffs, the ordinary burden remained on the customs authorities to prove illicit importation under Section 167(8). Mere foreign manufacture of the goods, or their presence in the petitioner's possession, was insufficient to shift the burden to the petitioner. Section 106 of the Evidence Act could not be used to displace the prosecution's general burden where the facts of importation were not specially within the petitioner's knowledge. The theory that confiscation could proceed against offending goods without proof of unlawful importation was rejected. The order of confiscation was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 03 Jan 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288844