Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
HC held that under Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962, the burden of proving non-smuggled status of seized goods lies with the person from whose possession the goods were seized. In this case, crude gold bars of foreign origin were confiscated. The CESTAT's order was set aside, with the penalty reduced to Rs. 1,00,000 for the respondent, who was deemed a carrier. The gold valued at Rs. 91,98,090 remains confiscated as the respondent failed to prove legitimate acquisition. The civil miscellaneous appeal was allowed, partially modifying the original penalty while upholding the confiscation order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.