https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1318 The dominant issue was whether the Tribunal lawfully reversed confiscation by treating the seized foreign-origin gold as duly accounted for under s.123 Customs Act and by discounting s.108 statements. The SC held the Tribunal misapplied s.123 by accepting documents without addressing material discrepancies identified by the adjudicating authority and by failing to examine whether the documents reliably linked the seized gold to lawful importation; consequently, the finding that the burden stood discharged was unsustainable. The SC further held the Tribunal erred in relying on an asserted "trade practice" of carrying gold in shoes without evidentiary foundation and in treating retracted s.108 admissions without proper scrutiny; thus, the HC wrongly found no substantial question of law. The Tribunal and HC orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh determination. en-us Thu, 08 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jan 2026 16:26:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1318 The dominant issue was whether the Tribunal lawfully reversed confiscation by treating the seized foreign-origin gold as duly accounted for under s.123 Customs Act and by discounting s.108 statements. The SC held the Tribunal misapplied s.123 by accepting documents without addressing material discrepancies identified by the adjudicating authority and by failing to examine whether the documents reliably linked the seized gold to lawful importation; consequently, the finding that the burden stood discharged was unsustainable. The SC further held the Tribunal erred in relying on an asserted "trade practice" of carrying gold in shoes without evidentiary foundation and in treating retracted s.108 admissions without proper scrutiny; thus, the HC wrongly found no substantial question of law. The Tribunal and HC orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh determination. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 08 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1318