https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2150 The Tribunal found that although the impugned goods were of foreign origin and subject to confiscation and Customs Duty, the appellants were not directly involved in their illicit importation. The denial by the supplier regarding the sale of the goods shifted the burden of proof onto the appellants, who failed to meet the requirements under Section 123 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal considered the payment through a Bank Draft as evidence of lack of direct involvement, leading to the setting aside of the redemption fine and penalty while upholding liability for Customs Duty payment and confiscation of the goods. en-us Mon, 11 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2150 The Tribunal found that although the impugned goods were of foreign origin and subject to confiscation and Customs Duty, the appellants were not directly involved in their illicit importation. The denial by the supplier regarding the sale of the goods shifted the burden of proof onto the appellants, who failed to meet the requirements under Section 123 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal considered the payment through a Bank Draft as evidence of lack of direct involvement, leading to the setting aside of the redemption fine and penalty while upholding liability for Customs Duty payment and confiscation of the goods. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 11 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2150