https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390746 The appellant failed to discharge the onus under Section 123 of the Customs Act regarding seized gold and Indian Currency. The Ld. Commissioner's decision to confiscate under Sections 111 and 121 was unsustained due to lack of reasonable belief in smuggling and genuine possession documents. The penalty under Section 112 was deemed unsustainable as the appellant satisfactorily explained possession. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of meeting burden of proof and reasonable belief in seizure actions under the Customs Act, 1962. en-us Wed, 26 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Jan 2020 06:50:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390746 The appellant failed to discharge the onus under Section 123 of the Customs Act regarding seized gold and Indian Currency. The Ld. Commissioner's decision to confiscate under Sections 111 and 121 was unsustained due to lack of reasonable belief in smuggling and genuine possession documents. The penalty under Section 112 was deemed unsustainable as the appellant satisfactorily explained possession. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of meeting burden of proof and reasonable belief in seizure actions under the Customs Act, 1962. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 26 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390746