https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170376 CESTAT Mumbai held that territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate seized goods arises where the seizure occurs, so the Mumbai customs authorities could proceed despite the goods having originated elsewhere. It further held that in smuggling cases involving non-notified goods, the Department may establish illicit import through circumstantial evidence, foreign origin markings, false explanations, denial by alleged suppliers, and failure to produce Bills of Entry; confiscation and duty demand were sustained. However, penalty under Section 112(b) requires proof of knowledge or conscious involvement, and in the absence of evidence of mens rea, the personal penalties were set aside. 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 CESTAT Mumbai held that territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate seized goods arises where the seizure occurs, so the Mumbai customs authorities could proceed despite the goods having originated elsewhere. It further held that in smuggling cases involving non-notified goods, the Department may establish illicit import through circumstantial evidence, foreign origin markings, false explanations, denial by alleged suppliers, and failure to produce Bills of Entry; confiscation and duty demand were sustained. However, penalty under Section 112(b) requires proof of knowledge or conscious involvement, and in the absence of evidence of mens rea, the personal penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170376