https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41388 The HC held that retention of seized goods beyond the statutory time limit was illegal and without jurisdiction. The court found that extension of the retention period was invalid as it violated principles of natural justice. The burden of proof was wrongly placed on the petitioner instead of the authorities. Consequently, the confiscation order was declared illegal. The court ruled that when goods are retained beyond prescribed limits without proper legal basis, any subsequent prohibitory orders or confiscation proceedings become invalid, and the burden lies on authorities to prove smuggling allegations. en-us Tue, 09 Nov 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:13:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41388 The HC held that retention of seized goods beyond the statutory time limit was illegal and without jurisdiction. The court found that extension of the retention period was invalid as it violated principles of natural justice. The burden of proof was wrongly placed on the petitioner instead of the authorities. Consequently, the confiscation order was declared illegal. The court ruled that when goods are retained beyond prescribed limits without proper legal basis, any subsequent prohibitory orders or confiscation proceedings become invalid, and the burden lies on authorities to prove smuggling allegations. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 09 Nov 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41388