https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349830 The tribunal affirmed the confiscation of seized goods under Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the appellant's inability to provide a satisfactory explanation for the source of procurement. The appellant's claim that the goods were purchased from a specific trader was deemed unsatisfactory, leading to the conclusion of smuggling. Cross-examination of witnesses was considered unnecessary as the goods were found in the appellant's possession. The tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalty from &8377; 1 lakh each to &8377; 50,000 each, considering the excessive amount. The appeal was disposed of with the modified terms, maintaining the confiscation but adjusting the financial penalties. en-us Fri, 15 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Oct 2017 08:37:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349830 The tribunal affirmed the confiscation of seized goods under Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the appellant's inability to provide a satisfactory explanation for the source of procurement. The appellant's claim that the goods were purchased from a specific trader was deemed unsatisfactory, leading to the conclusion of smuggling. Cross-examination of witnesses was considered unnecessary as the goods were found in the appellant's possession. The tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalty from &8377; 1 lakh each to &8377; 50,000 each, considering the excessive amount. The appeal was disposed of with the modified terms, maintaining the confiscation but adjusting the financial penalties. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 15 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349830