https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47816 In alleged smuggling of non-notified goods, the Department still had the initial burden to produce some evidence of illegal importation; Section 106 of the Evidence Act could not be used to dispense with that burden. The Revenue relied on discrepancies in description and country of origin, but produced no material proving the seized goods were smuggled. The Tribunal had not applied an incorrect principle of law, and its view that the burden was not discharged was upheld. No substantial question of law arose. en-us Wed, 08 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Apr 2018 11:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47816 In alleged smuggling of non-notified goods, the Department still had the initial burden to produce some evidence of illegal importation; Section 106 of the Evidence Act could not be used to dispense with that burden. The Revenue relied on discrepancies in description and country of origin, but produced no material proving the seized goods were smuggled. The Tribunal had not applied an incorrect principle of law, and its view that the burden was not discharged was upheld. No substantial question of law arose. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 08 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47816