https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116329 The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellants under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue failed to prove that the goods dealt with by the appellants were illicitly imported or foreign branded, as the seized goods lacked foreign markings. The decision underscored the necessity for the Revenue to discharge the burden of proof in establishing the nature of goods before imposing penalties, serving as a significant precedent in customs-related cases. en-us Wed, 01 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Jun 2012 14:47:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116329 The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellants under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue failed to prove that the goods dealt with by the appellants were illicitly imported or foreign branded, as the seized goods lacked foreign markings. The decision underscored the necessity for the Revenue to discharge the burden of proof in establishing the nature of goods before imposing penalties, serving as a significant precedent in customs-related cases. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 01 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116329