https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41430 Inspection followed by seizure was upheld because the officer acted on displayed goods, called for registers and vouchers, and then seized the goods; the action was treated as inspection, not an unauthorised search. The seizure was supported by reasonable belief based on non-maintenance of the statutory register, mismatching documents, and the panchnama. Confiscation was sustained for goods subject to the burden-of-proof regime and for notified goods where lawful origin was not proved and the register was not maintained, but it failed for the remaining goods because no independent evidence of illicit import or smuggling was produced. The penalty was maintained despite the absence of a fresh valuation. en-us Mon, 07 Jun 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Jun 2010 11:46:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41430 Inspection followed by seizure was upheld because the officer acted on displayed goods, called for registers and vouchers, and then seized the goods; the action was treated as inspection, not an unauthorised search. The seizure was supported by reasonable belief based on non-maintenance of the statutory register, mismatching documents, and the panchnama. Confiscation was sustained for goods subject to the burden-of-proof regime and for notified goods where lawful origin was not proved and the register was not maintained, but it failed for the remaining goods because no independent evidence of illicit import or smuggling was produced. The penalty was maintained despite the absence of a fresh valuation. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 07 Jun 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41430