https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44376 The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing that the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act rests on the possessor to demonstrate seized goods are not smuggled. The judgment criticized the Collector of Customs and Tribunal for failing to consider evidence presented by the petitioner, leading to an erroneous decision. The Court clarified the need for a reasonable belief of smuggling before shifting the burden of proof. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed without costs, highlighting the importance of correctly applying legal principles and considering all evidence in customs cases. en-us Tue, 31 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Jun 2010 18:26:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44376 The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing that the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act rests on the possessor to demonstrate seized goods are not smuggled. The judgment criticized the Collector of Customs and Tribunal for failing to consider evidence presented by the petitioner, leading to an erroneous decision. The Court clarified the need for a reasonable belief of smuggling before shifting the burden of proof. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed without costs, highlighting the importance of correctly applying legal principles and considering all evidence in customs cases. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 31 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44376