https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444604 The tribunal set aside the order confiscating a 1 kg gold bar and currency of Rs. 41,75,000/- under Section 121 of the Customs Act and the penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/- under Section 112(b). It found that the appellant provided sufficient documentation proving legitimate ownership and acquisition of the seized items, thus discharging the burden of proof under Section 123. The Department failed to provide evidence of smuggling. The tribunal ruled that reliance on inadmissible statements without cross-examination was improper, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits. en-us Mon, 16 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Oct 2023 10:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444604 The tribunal set aside the order confiscating a 1 kg gold bar and currency of Rs. 41,75,000/- under Section 121 of the Customs Act and the penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/- under Section 112(b). It found that the appellant provided sufficient documentation proving legitimate ownership and acquisition of the seized items, thus discharging the burden of proof under Section 123. The Department failed to provide evidence of smuggling. The tribunal ruled that reliance on inadmissible statements without cross-examination was improper, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 16 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444604