https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47651 For non-notified goods, the Department must still adduce some evidence of illegal import or smuggled character; Section 106 of the Evidence Act only reduces, but does not remove, that initial burden. Even though certain facts may be within the special knowledge of the person proceeded against, that does not absolve the Revenue from proving the seized goods were smuggled. On the facts, the record after re-verification did not supply supporting material, and the discrepancies relied on were insufficient to establish smuggling. The Tribunal therefore applied no wrong principle of law, and the Department failed to discharge the burden of proof. en-us Wed, 08 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Feb 2020 11:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47651 For non-notified goods, the Department must still adduce some evidence of illegal import or smuggled character; Section 106 of the Evidence Act only reduces, but does not remove, that initial burden. Even though certain facts may be within the special knowledge of the person proceeded against, that does not absolve the Revenue from proving the seized goods were smuggled. On the facts, the record after re-verification did not supply supporting material, and the discrepancies relied on were insufficient to establish smuggling. The Tribunal therefore applied no wrong principle of law, and the Department failed to discharge the burden of proof. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 08 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47651