https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240054 Foreign-origin notified gold recovered from an appellant's possession attracted a burden on him to prove licit possession under the Customs Act, 1962. The retracted statement did not undermine the case because the confiscation was supported by independent corroboration, while the explanations for purchase, source of currency, and family ownership were rejected as inconsistent and unproved. Pre-1947 inscriptions on some coins and later reflection of value in income-tax returns did not establish lawful acquisition. Exoneration under the Gold Control Act was held irrelevant to Customs proceedings because the two enactments operate for different purposes. The confiscation of the gold sovereigns and currency, and the penalty, were therefore upheld. en-us Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 May 2015 17:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240054 Foreign-origin notified gold recovered from an appellant's possession attracted a burden on him to prove licit possession under the Customs Act, 1962. The retracted statement did not undermine the case because the confiscation was supported by independent corroboration, while the explanations for purchase, source of currency, and family ownership were rejected as inconsistent and unproved. Pre-1947 inscriptions on some coins and later reflection of value in income-tax returns did not establish lawful acquisition. Exoneration under the Gold Control Act was held irrelevant to Customs proceedings because the two enactments operate for different purposes. The confiscation of the gold sovereigns and currency, and the penalty, were therefore upheld. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240054