<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (1) TMI 469 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448070</link>
    <description>CESTAT New Delhi upheld absolute confiscation of gold seized from four passengers returning from Bangkok. The appellants failed to declare gold through red channel, were intercepted near exit gate, and did not satisfy legal import requirements under notification. Their statements confirmed awareness of customs procedures and gold&#039;s dutiable nature. The tribunal rejected arguments of prevention from declaration as afterthought, finding clear intent to smuggle. The gold, being of foreign origin and undeclared, constituted prohibited goods under Section 2(33) of Customs Act, 1962, making it liable for absolute confiscation under Sections 111 and 112(a). Appeal dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2024 15:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=739631" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (1) TMI 469 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448070</link>
      <description>CESTAT New Delhi upheld absolute confiscation of gold seized from four passengers returning from Bangkok. The appellants failed to declare gold through red channel, were intercepted near exit gate, and did not satisfy legal import requirements under notification. Their statements confirmed awareness of customs procedures and gold&#039;s dutiable nature. The tribunal rejected arguments of prevention from declaration as afterthought, finding clear intent to smuggle. The gold, being of foreign origin and undeclared, constituted prohibited goods under Section 2(33) of Customs Act, 1962, making it liable for absolute confiscation under Sections 111 and 112(a). Appeal dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448070</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>