https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50781 Burden-shifting provisions for smuggled goods did not apply where gold was first seized by police and later handed to Customs under judicial direction, because Customs itself had not effected the original seizure needed to trigger the statutory presumption. The provisions were also held to be prospective, so they could not operate against a seizure made in 1950 before their enactment. In the absence of a valid presumption, the Revenue was required to prove smuggling by positive evidence and failed to do so, with the result that confiscation and personal penalty could not be sustained. en-us Tue, 19 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:25:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50781 Burden-shifting provisions for smuggled goods did not apply where gold was first seized by police and later handed to Customs under judicial direction, because Customs itself had not effected the original seizure needed to trigger the statutory presumption. The provisions were also held to be prospective, so they could not operate against a seizure made in 1950 before their enactment. In the absence of a valid presumption, the Revenue was required to prove smuggling by positive evidence and failed to do so, with the result that confiscation and personal penalty could not be sustained. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 19 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50781