https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436808 The case involved the confiscation of goods with foreign markings, where the Appellant contested the seizure based solely on markings as insufficient evidence of smuggling. The Member (Judicial) ruled in favor of the Appellant, highlighting the lack of concrete proof connecting the goods to illegal activities. Emphasizing that foreign markings do not automatically imply smuggling in a liberalized economy, the Member set aside the confiscation order and granted relief to the Appellant due to the burden of proof resting with the Revenue and the absence of direct evidence linking the goods to unlawful importation. en-us Mon, 17 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:47:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436808 The case involved the confiscation of goods with foreign markings, where the Appellant contested the seizure based solely on markings as insufficient evidence of smuggling. The Member (Judicial) ruled in favor of the Appellant, highlighting the lack of concrete proof connecting the goods to illegal activities. Emphasizing that foreign markings do not automatically imply smuggling in a liberalized economy, the Member set aside the confiscation order and granted relief to the Appellant due to the burden of proof resting with the Revenue and the absence of direct evidence linking the goods to unlawful importation. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 17 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436808