https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752421 CESTAT NEW DELHI dismissed the appeal regarding smuggling of gold bars. The tribunal held that gold imported in violation of DGFT notification conditions and RBI restrictions constitutes prohibited goods under Section 2(33) of Customs Act 1962, falling within the definition of smuggling under Section 2(39). The seized gold bars were liable for absolute confiscation under Section 111(d). The appellant, having knowingly dealt with goods liable to confiscation, was subject to penalties under Section 112(b) and Section 114AA for non-declaration. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) order dated 11.02.2022 was upheld. en-us Mon, 06 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 May 2024 08:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752421 CESTAT NEW DELHI dismissed the appeal regarding smuggling of gold bars. The tribunal held that gold imported in violation of DGFT notification conditions and RBI restrictions constitutes prohibited goods under Section 2(33) of Customs Act 1962, falling within the definition of smuggling under Section 2(39). The seized gold bars were liable for absolute confiscation under Section 111(d). The appellant, having knowingly dealt with goods liable to confiscation, was subject to penalties under Section 112(b) and Section 114AA for non-declaration. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) order dated 11.02.2022 was upheld. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 06 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752421