https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418771 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, finding insufficient evidence to link the seized goods to smuggling from Myanmar. The Appellant successfully demonstrated legal acquisition of a portion of the gold through purchase invoices and a Will, leading to the release of the claimed gold. The Tribunal did not address the penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, focusing instead on ownership and smuggling allegations. The decision underscored the necessity of conclusive evidence in customs cases and highlighted the burden of proof on authorities to establish smuggling beyond reasonable doubt. en-us Tue, 22 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Feb 2022 07:13:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418771 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, finding insufficient evidence to link the seized goods to smuggling from Myanmar. The Appellant successfully demonstrated legal acquisition of a portion of the gold through purchase invoices and a Will, leading to the release of the claimed gold. The Tribunal did not address the penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, focusing instead on ownership and smuggling allegations. The decision underscored the necessity of conclusive evidence in customs cases and highlighted the burden of proof on authorities to establish smuggling beyond reasonable doubt. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 22 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418771