https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125413 The judge upheld the original authority's order, finding that the respondent's admission of importing smuggled goods without duty payment was sufficient evidence under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. The judge ruled that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in setting aside the adjudication order based on the failure to prove the nature of the goods. While reducing the redemption fine and penalty due to the respondent's role as a trader, the judge allowed the Revenue's appeal with revised fine and penalty amounts. en-us Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:06:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125413 The judge upheld the original authority's order, finding that the respondent's admission of importing smuggled goods without duty payment was sufficient evidence under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. The judge ruled that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in setting aside the adjudication order based on the failure to prove the nature of the goods. While reducing the redemption fine and penalty due to the respondent's role as a trader, the judge allowed the Revenue's appeal with revised fine and penalty amounts. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125413