https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41364 In customs confiscation proceedings concerning prohibited or restricted goods, the Department may satisfy its initial burden through a chain of circumstantial evidence rather than mathematical certainty, particularly where the goods are of foreign origin, import is prohibited, and the surrounding facts support an inference of smuggling. The claimant's inconsistent explanations, concealment, and failure to produce facts or documents within special knowledge may justify a limited adverse inference, although the primary burden remains on the Department. On writ review, the High Court should not reappreciate evidence as an appellate court and may interfere only if the finding is illegal, perverse, or contrary to natural justice. en-us Wed, 03 Apr 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Feb 2026 18:04:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41364 In customs confiscation proceedings concerning prohibited or restricted goods, the Department may satisfy its initial burden through a chain of circumstantial evidence rather than mathematical certainty, particularly where the goods are of foreign origin, import is prohibited, and the surrounding facts support an inference of smuggling. The claimant's inconsistent explanations, concealment, and failure to produce facts or documents within special knowledge may justify a limited adverse inference, although the primary burden remains on the Department. On writ review, the High Court should not reappreciate evidence as an appellate court and may interfere only if the finding is illegal, perverse, or contrary to natural justice. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 03 Apr 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41364