https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43206 In confiscation proceedings concerning gold bars under the Sea Customs Act, prima facie circumstantial evidence and unexplained possession were treated as sufficient to sustain confiscation where the claimant failed to prove a lawful source, gave false or unsupported explanations, and the goods bore foreign markings. The surrounding conduct, including contradictory statements and denial by the alleged seller, supported an inference of smuggled goods. Delay in final adjudication after a valid show cause notice and remand did not by itself vitiate the proceedings, particularly where the party participated in the reopened adjudication. en-us Wed, 31 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:23:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43206 In confiscation proceedings concerning gold bars under the Sea Customs Act, prima facie circumstantial evidence and unexplained possession were treated as sufficient to sustain confiscation where the claimant failed to prove a lawful source, gave false or unsupported explanations, and the goods bore foreign markings. The surrounding conduct, including contradictory statements and denial by the alleged seller, supported an inference of smuggled goods. Delay in final adjudication after a valid show cause notice and remand did not by itself vitiate the proceedings, particularly where the party participated in the reopened adjudication. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 31 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43206