https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400835 Smart watches seized in customs proceedings were treated as goods covered by section 123, so the burden shifted to the claimant to prove lawful import; because the bill of entry and statements did not reliably link the documents to the seized goods, confiscation was upheld. Valuation by reasonable means was sustained, but the redemption fine was reduced as excessive in relation to the assessed value and market value. Duty on redemption was left intact as arising under section 125(2), while the penalty under section 114A was set aside because it was not the proper consequence of confiscation and redemption. The penalty under section 114AA was maintained, but substantially reduced to reflect the value and circumstances of the goods. en-us Wed, 18 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Nov 2020 10:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400835 Smart watches seized in customs proceedings were treated as goods covered by section 123, so the burden shifted to the claimant to prove lawful import; because the bill of entry and statements did not reliably link the documents to the seized goods, confiscation was upheld. Valuation by reasonable means was sustained, but the redemption fine was reduced as excessive in relation to the assessed value and market value. Duty on redemption was left intact as arising under section 125(2), while the penalty under section 114A was set aside because it was not the proper consequence of confiscation and redemption. The penalty under section 114AA was maintained, but substantially reduced to reflect the value and circumstances of the goods. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 18 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400835