https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45692 In confiscation proceedings for press buttons, the department had to affirmatively prove smuggled import because the special burden-shifting rule did not apply; disbelief of the purchaser's explanation was insufficient, and the confiscation order was unsustainable. The Court also held that pending customs proceedings initiated under the repealed Sea Customs Act, 1878, were preserved by the saving provision and did not fail merely because the Customs Act, 1962 had come into force, so the limitation objection based on fresh action within six months failed. On both merits and repeal-related objections, the challenge succeeded. en-us Fri, 12 Nov 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:40:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45692 In confiscation proceedings for press buttons, the department had to affirmatively prove smuggled import because the special burden-shifting rule did not apply; disbelief of the purchaser's explanation was insufficient, and the confiscation order was unsustainable. The Court also held that pending customs proceedings initiated under the repealed Sea Customs Act, 1878, were preserved by the saving provision and did not fail merely because the Customs Act, 1962 had come into force, so the limitation objection based on fresh action within six months failed. On both merits and repeal-related objections, the challenge succeeded. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 12 Nov 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45692