https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170376 The Tribunal affirmed the jurisdiction of Mumbai Customs authorities to adjudicate the case, rejected the appellants' challenge. The burden of proof for non-notified goods shifted to the appellants, who failed to discharge it. The department provided sufficient evidence to establish smuggling, meeting its burden. Penalties under Section 112(b) were set aside due to lack of evidence of guilty mind. Duty demands were confirmed, goods confiscated, and redemption fines imposed. Penalties on appellants were overturned. en-us Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 May 2015 15:37:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170376 The Tribunal affirmed the jurisdiction of Mumbai Customs authorities to adjudicate the case, rejected the appellants' challenge. The burden of proof for non-notified goods shifted to the appellants, who failed to discharge it. The department provided sufficient evidence to establish smuggling, meeting its burden. Penalties under Section 112(b) were set aside due to lack of evidence of guilty mind. Duty demands were confirmed, goods confiscated, and redemption fines imposed. Penalties on appellants were overturned. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170376