https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435317 The Tribunal upheld its decision to dismiss the department's appeals, finding no substantial legal questions. It determined that the department failed to prove the goods were smuggled, as the burden of proof was not met and no incriminatory evidence was found. The goods, locally purchased and lacking foreign markings, were not proven to be of foreign origin. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in retracted statements and the denial of cross-examination. The order was modified to allow the respondent to seek payment for the value of the perishable goods instead of their return. en-us Tue, 14 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Nov 2023 11:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435317 The Tribunal upheld its decision to dismiss the department's appeals, finding no substantial legal questions. It determined that the department failed to prove the goods were smuggled, as the burden of proof was not met and no incriminatory evidence was found. The goods, locally purchased and lacking foreign markings, were not proven to be of foreign origin. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in retracted statements and the denial of cross-examination. The order was modified to allow the respondent to seek payment for the value of the perishable goods instead of their return. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 14 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435317