https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46408 A statutory burden-shifting provision applies only where the seizing officer, at the time of seizure, had a reasonable belief that the goods were smuggled; a mere suspicion is insufficient and cannot trigger the presumption. On the facts, the gold was taken on suspicion arising from employee conduct and a stock shortage, while the detention was described as pending inquiry. The materials did not show that the seizing officer formed the required reasonable belief when the seizure was made, so the burden could not shift and the confiscation order could not be sustained. The writ relief quashing the confiscation was therefore upheld. en-us Wed, 07 Sep 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Jul 2010 17:54:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46408 A statutory burden-shifting provision applies only where the seizing officer, at the time of seizure, had a reasonable belief that the goods were smuggled; a mere suspicion is insufficient and cannot trigger the presumption. On the facts, the gold was taken on suspicion arising from employee conduct and a stock shortage, while the detention was described as pending inquiry. The materials did not show that the seizing officer formed the required reasonable belief when the seizure was made, so the burden could not shift and the confiscation order could not be sustained. The writ relief quashing the confiscation was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 07 Sep 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46408