https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435317 Because the betel nuts were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the revenue had to prove smuggled foreign origin, and the court accepted that suspicion, border proximity, and uncorroborated evidence were insufficient where the goods were bought from local markets and no independent scientific or documentary proof established foreign origin. Reliance on retracted Section 108 statements, especially without cross-examination of the witnesses despite request, could not by itself sustain confiscation or penalty. As the goods were perishable and had remained seized for a long time, physical return was declined in public interest, but the claimant was left free to seek the value of the goods before the competent authority. 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 Because the betel nuts were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the revenue had to prove smuggled foreign origin, and the court accepted that suspicion, border proximity, and uncorroborated evidence were insufficient where the goods were bought from local markets and no independent scientific or documentary proof established foreign origin. Reliance on retracted Section 108 statements, especially without cross-examination of the witnesses despite request, could not by itself sustain confiscation or penalty. As the goods were perishable and had remained seized for a long time, physical return was declined in public interest, but the claimant was left free to seek the value of the goods before the competent authority. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 14 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435317