https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78947 The case involved penalties u/ss 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act for smuggling foreign gold. The tribunal held that statements without cross-examination are inadmissible. The appellant no. 2 wasn't actively involved in smuggling, so penalties were unsustainable. Appellant no. 1's implication lacked evidence and violated section 138B. Both appellants didn't claim gold ownership, so burden of proof u/s 123 didn't apply. Penalties u/ss 112(a) and 112(b) were unsupportable. Thus, penalties on both appellants were set aside, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Sat, 29 Jun 2024 08:08:52 +0530 Sat, 29 Jun 2024 08:08:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78947 The case involved penalties u/ss 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act for smuggling foreign gold. The tribunal held that statements without cross-examination are inadmissible. The appellant no. 2 wasn't actively involved in smuggling, so penalties were unsustainable. Appellant no. 1's implication lacked evidence and violated section 138B. Both appellants didn't claim gold ownership, so burden of proof u/s 123 didn't apply. Penalties u/ss 112(a) and 112(b) were unsupportable. Thus, penalties on both appellants were set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Highlights Customs Sat, 29 Jun 2024 08:08:52 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78947