https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376436 In cases involving seized gold under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the statutory burden shifts to the person from whose possession the gold was seized to prove lawful acquisition once seizure is made on a reasonable belief of smuggling; the Department is not required to prove smuggling beyond that threshold. Voluntary statements under Section 108, lack of satisfactory documents, inconsistencies in vouchers and stock registers, and other suspicious circumstances can support a finding of smuggled origin. On that basis, the confiscation and connected penalties were restored after the Tribunal was found to have applied the wrong standard of proof. en-us Fri, 01 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Jun 2019 12:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376436 In cases involving seized gold under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the statutory burden shifts to the person from whose possession the gold was seized to prove lawful acquisition once seizure is made on a reasonable belief of smuggling; the Department is not required to prove smuggling beyond that threshold. Voluntary statements under Section 108, lack of satisfactory documents, inconsistencies in vouchers and stock registers, and other suspicious circumstances can support a finding of smuggled origin. On that basis, the confiscation and connected penalties were restored after the Tribunal was found to have applied the wrong standard of proof. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 01 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376436