https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785415 Dispute concerns alleged smuggling and confiscation of watches. Once the appellant produced evidence of licit possession, the evidential burden shifted to the department to prove smuggling, which it failed to discharge; consequence: confiscation could not be sustained. A conviction based on a prior intercepted seizure and an inquiry statement was rejected because the statements procedural safeguards were not followed and the prior modus operandi inference could not be extended to the later consignment; consequence: penalties imposed on the appellant and co-accused were set aside. en-us Mon, 19 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Jan 2026 09:10:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785415 Dispute concerns alleged smuggling and confiscation of watches. Once the appellant produced evidence of licit possession, the evidential burden shifted to the department to prove smuggling, which it failed to discharge; consequence: confiscation could not be sustained. A conviction based on a prior intercepted seizure and an inquiry statement was rejected because the statements procedural safeguards were not followed and the prior modus operandi inference could not be extended to the later consignment; consequence: penalties imposed on the appellant and co-accused were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 19 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785415