<?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>Gold Bars Seizure: Marked Bars Confiscated, Unmarked Bars Released; Burden of Proof Shifts Under Customs Act.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81851</link>
    <description>10kg of gold consisting of 10 gold bars, with 7 bars bearing foreign markings and 3 bars without markings, was seized along with cash from an employee of the appellant. The appellant claimed the 3 unmarked bars were melted from old jewelry. Section 123 of the Customs Act was invoked, requiring the appellant to prove the 7 marked bars were not smuggled goods. The Tribunal held there was reasonable belief of smuggling for the 7 bars, but not for the 3 unmarked bars, shifting the burden of proof to the department for those. The department failed to prove the 3 bars were smuggled. Confiscation of the 7 marked bars was upheld as smuggled goods u/s 111(d), but confiscation of the 3 unmarked bars was set aside. Penalties u/ss 112 and 114AA were reduced proportionately. The appeal was partly allowed, and the department was directed to release the 3 unmarked bars.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2024 08:23:37 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2024 08:23:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=771318" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Gold Bars Seizure: Marked Bars Confiscated, Unmarked Bars Released; Burden of Proof Shifts Under Customs Act.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81851</link>
      <description>10kg of gold consisting of 10 gold bars, with 7 bars bearing foreign markings and 3 bars without markings, was seized along with cash from an employee of the appellant. The appellant claimed the 3 unmarked bars were melted from old jewelry. Section 123 of the Customs Act was invoked, requiring the appellant to prove the 7 marked bars were not smuggled goods. The Tribunal held there was reasonable belief of smuggling for the 7 bars, but not for the 3 unmarked bars, shifting the burden of proof to the department for those. The department failed to prove the 3 bars were smuggled. Confiscation of the 7 marked bars was upheld as smuggled goods u/s 111(d), but confiscation of the 3 unmarked bars was set aside. Penalties u/ss 112 and 114AA were reduced proportionately. The appeal was partly allowed, and the department was directed to release the 3 unmarked bars.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2024 08:23:37 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81851</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>