https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801041 Section 123 of the Customs Act places the statutory burden of proof on the relevant party only for notified goods. As the seized betel nuts were neither prohibited nor notified goods, the Revenue bore the burden of establishing that they were smuggled. That burden was not discharged on materially identical facts arising from the same adjudication order. The penalty was therefore unsustainable because smuggling of the seized goods remained unproved. en-us Fri, 09 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Oct 2026 05:44:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801041 Section 123 of the Customs Act places the statutory burden of proof on the relevant party only for notified goods. As the seized betel nuts were neither prohibited nor notified goods, the Revenue bore the burden of establishing that they were smuggled. That burden was not discharged on materially identical facts arising from the same adjudication order. The penalty was therefore unsustainable because smuggling of the seized goods remained unproved. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 09 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801041