Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
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.
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
