https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116955 The Tribunal held that, where gold was first seized by the Anti-Corruption Bureau and then handed to customs, Section 123 was not attracted in the manner urged by Revenue. The department was still required to produce positive evidence proving the illicit origin of the goods and their smuggled character. The appellants gave an explanation for possession and filed supporting documents, while the department failed to disprove that explanation or establish smuggling. Confiscation therefore could not be sustained, and the confiscation order and penalties were set aside. en-us Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116955 The Tribunal held that, where gold was first seized by the Anti-Corruption Bureau and then handed to customs, Section 123 was not attracted in the manner urged by Revenue. The department was still required to produce positive evidence proving the illicit origin of the goods and their smuggled character. The appellants gave an explanation for possession and filed supporting documents, while the department failed to disprove that explanation or establish smuggling. Confiscation therefore could not be sustained, and the confiscation order and penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116955