https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264529 Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 was construed in context to mean that goods not expressly prohibited by section 11 or by notification attract a mandatory option of redemption on confiscation; cut and polished diamonds therefore required a fine-in-lieu-of-confiscation option. The order of absolute confiscation was not disturbed because the appellant declined to exercise that option. Penalties on Bhargav B. Patel and Nilesh Patel were set aside because the record did not establish, even on a preponderance of probability, any cogent documentary, circumstantial, or other evidence linking them to the smuggling or misdeclaration of the diamonds. en-us Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Sep 2016 12:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264529 Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 was construed in context to mean that goods not expressly prohibited by section 11 or by notification attract a mandatory option of redemption on confiscation; cut and polished diamonds therefore required a fine-in-lieu-of-confiscation option. The order of absolute confiscation was not disturbed because the appellant declined to exercise that option. Penalties on Bhargav B. Patel and Nilesh Patel were set aside because the record did not establish, even on a preponderance of probability, any cogent documentary, circumstantial, or other evidence linking them to the smuggling or misdeclaration of the diamonds. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264529