https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72699 In confiscation proceedings, a separate notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act is not mandatory merely because a person asserts ownership during investigation; notice depends on the authority's determination, on the material collected, of who is the person concerned, and any earlier opportunity to contest the claim cures the procedural objection. The claimant also bears the burden of proving ownership of the seized primary gold, and conflicting explanations, unreliable voucher evidence, tampered register entries and failure to produce fresh corroboration on remand will defeat the claim. On these facts, the confiscation was sustained and release of the gold was refused. en-us Wed, 21 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 May 2011 14:30:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72699 In confiscation proceedings, a separate notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act is not mandatory merely because a person asserts ownership during investigation; notice depends on the authority's determination, on the material collected, of who is the person concerned, and any earlier opportunity to contest the claim cures the procedural objection. The claimant also bears the burden of proving ownership of the seized primary gold, and conflicting explanations, unreliable voucher evidence, tampered register entries and failure to produce fresh corroboration on remand will defeat the claim. On these facts, the confiscation was sustained and release of the gold was refused. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 21 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72699