https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45765 In customs confiscation proceedings of penal character, the department must affirmatively prove by satisfactory evidence that the seized goods were imported in violation of the relevant import restriction; mere disbelief of the purchaser's explanation or absence of proof of lawful purchase is insufficient. The authorities also cannot rely on section 106 of the Evidence Act to shift the burden where no evidence shows when the goods were manufactured or imported. On the facts, the customs authorities failed to discharge that burden, so the confiscation order and penalty could not be sustained and the seized properties were directed to be released with consequential refund. en-us Tue, 08 Aug 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:33:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45765 In customs confiscation proceedings of penal character, the department must affirmatively prove by satisfactory evidence that the seized goods were imported in violation of the relevant import restriction; mere disbelief of the purchaser's explanation or absence of proof of lawful purchase is insufficient. The authorities also cannot rely on section 106 of the Evidence Act to shift the burden where no evidence shows when the goods were manufactured or imported. On the facts, the customs authorities failed to discharge that burden, so the confiscation order and penalty could not be sustained and the seized properties were directed to be released with consequential refund. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 08 Aug 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45765