https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109877 The Tribunal set aside the penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed on the appellant due to insufficient evidence linking the confiscated currency to alleged gold sales. The appellant's claim for the currency was deemed unsustainable as he admitted it belonged to another individual. However, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the currency, stating that the appellant, as a carrier, had no legal basis to claim ownership. The decision emphasized that the ownership of the confiscated currency rested with the alleged owner, not the appellant, resulting in the appeal being disposed of with the penalty set aside but the confiscation maintained. en-us Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:41:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109877 The Tribunal set aside the penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed on the appellant due to insufficient evidence linking the confiscated currency to alleged gold sales. The appellant's claim for the currency was deemed unsustainable as he admitted it belonged to another individual. However, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the currency, stating that the appellant, as a carrier, had no legal basis to claim ownership. The decision emphasized that the ownership of the confiscated currency rested with the alleged owner, not the appellant, resulting in the appeal being disposed of with the penalty set aside but the confiscation maintained. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109877