https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348936 The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of seized gold under sections 111 (b) and 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the possessor's failure to provide sufficient evidence of legal procurement. Despite claims of proper documentation, the appellants could not substantiate the source of the gold, leading to the imposition of reduced penalties of &8377; 5,00,000 and &8377; 1,00,000. The judgment emphasizes the necessity of supporting claims with concrete documentary evidence in cases involving foreign origin goods, where the burden of proof rests on the possessor. en-us Fri, 10 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Oct 2017 06:48:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348936 The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of seized gold under sections 111 (b) and 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the possessor's failure to provide sufficient evidence of legal procurement. Despite claims of proper documentation, the appellants could not substantiate the source of the gold, leading to the imposition of reduced penalties of &8377; 5,00,000 and &8377; 1,00,000. The judgment emphasizes the necessity of supporting claims with concrete documentary evidence in cases involving foreign origin goods, where the burden of proof rests on the possessor. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 10 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348936