https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242054 The court upheld the confiscation of gold articles under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, as the petitioner failed to prove the gold was not smuggled. Penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 were deemed valid, with the court finding no illegality. The application of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld, shifting the burden of proof to the petitioner. The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the validity of the seizure under both acts and rejecting the argument that the gold articles did not constitute primary gold under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. en-us Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jan 2014 07:02:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242054 The court upheld the confiscation of gold articles under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, as the petitioner failed to prove the gold was not smuggled. Penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 were deemed valid, with the court finding no illegality. The application of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld, shifting the burden of proof to the petitioner. The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the validity of the seizure under both acts and rejecting the argument that the gold articles did not constitute primary gold under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242054