https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770880 CESTAT Kolkata upheld confiscation of gold bars and penalty imposition under Section 112(b)(i) of Customs Act, 1962. Appellant failed to discharge onus under Section 123 to prove legality of seized goods. Court rejected appellant's claim of statement under duress, noting retraction was afterthought as no mention was made before Magistrate or in bail applications. Appellant's admission established his knowing involvement in carrying gold without valid documents. However, considering appellant's intermediary role rather than ultimate beneficiary status, penalty was reduced from Rs.52,55,000 to Rs.10,00,000. Appeal disposed. en-us Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 May 2025 08:39:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770880 CESTAT Kolkata upheld confiscation of gold bars and penalty imposition under Section 112(b)(i) of Customs Act, 1962. Appellant failed to discharge onus under Section 123 to prove legality of seized goods. Court rejected appellant's claim of statement under duress, noting retraction was afterthought as no mention was made before Magistrate or in bail applications. Appellant's admission established his knowing involvement in carrying gold without valid documents. However, considering appellant's intermediary role rather than ultimate beneficiary status, penalty was reduced from Rs.52,55,000 to Rs.10,00,000. Appeal disposed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770880