https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401578 The CESTAT Kolkata ruled in favor of appellants in a betel nut smuggling case. The tribunal held that betel nuts are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, placing the burden of proof on the department to establish smuggling through positive evidence. The department failed to discharge this burden, relying solely on negative inference and a certificate from ARDF Mangalore, which various courts have deemed unreliable as it lacks accreditation. The tribunal found no evidence indicating how or wherefrom the goods were smuggled, making the seizure unjustified. The appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 09 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 May 2025 14:14:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401578 The CESTAT Kolkata ruled in favor of appellants in a betel nut smuggling case. The tribunal held that betel nuts are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, placing the burden of proof on the department to establish smuggling through positive evidence. The department failed to discharge this burden, relying solely on negative inference and a certificate from ARDF Mangalore, which various courts have deemed unreliable as it lacks accreditation. The tribunal found no evidence indicating how or wherefrom the goods were smuggled, making the seizure unjustified. The appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 09 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401578