https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115635 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appellant's appeal against the confiscation of a gold bar and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 5,000. Discrepancies in evidence, including conflicting versions of how the gold bar was recovered and lack of tangible proof of foreign origin, led to the conclusion that neither confiscation nor penalty were justified under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The appellant was granted consequential relief as per law. en-us Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 May 2012 16:14:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115635 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appellant's appeal against the confiscation of a gold bar and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 5,000. Discrepancies in evidence, including conflicting versions of how the gold bar was recovered and lack of tangible proof of foreign origin, led to the conclusion that neither confiscation nor penalty were justified under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The appellant was granted consequential relief as per law. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115635