https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221811 The appellant successfully argued that gold falls under Section 123 of the Customs Act. The burden of proving smuggled goods remained with the Revenue even though initially seized by the Police. Evidence from traders established licit possession of the gold, leading to the rejection of confiscation under Sections 111(e) and 111(i). The demand for customs duty under Section 28 was set aside due to incorrect application. Penalties imposed were annulled as the appellant rebutted initial statements with evidence. The appeal was allowed, resulting in the annulment of confiscation, duty demand, and penalties. en-us Mon, 09 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221811 The appellant successfully argued that gold falls under Section 123 of the Customs Act. The burden of proving smuggled goods remained with the Revenue even though initially seized by the Police. Evidence from traders established licit possession of the gold, leading to the rejection of confiscation under Sections 111(e) and 111(i). The demand for customs duty under Section 28 was set aside due to incorrect application. Penalties imposed were annulled as the appellant rebutted initial statements with evidence. The appeal was allowed, resulting in the annulment of confiscation, duty demand, and penalties. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 09 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221811