https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355528 The appeals challenging the order confiscating gold and imposing penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act 1962 were dismissed. The court upheld the confiscation and penalties on both parties due to the lack of legitimate documentation proving the lawful procurement of the gold. The appellants' arguments of lack of malicious intent and reliance on open market availability were rejected. Failure to establish the gold's legitimate source led to the upheld penalties. The court found the cited case law inapplicable, emphasizing the necessity of proper documentation to avoid penalties and confiscation of restricted items like gold. en-us Wed, 25 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Feb 2018 09:23:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355528 The appeals challenging the order confiscating gold and imposing penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act 1962 were dismissed. The court upheld the confiscation and penalties on both parties due to the lack of legitimate documentation proving the lawful procurement of the gold. The appellants' arguments of lack of malicious intent and reliance on open market availability were rejected. Failure to establish the gold's legitimate source led to the upheld penalties. The court found the cited case law inapplicable, emphasizing the necessity of proper documentation to avoid penalties and confiscation of restricted items like gold. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 25 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355528