https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89106 CESTAT adjudicated a gold smuggling case involving alleged abetment under Customs Act Sections 112(a) and 112(b). The tribunal found the appellant orchestrated gold smuggling through two carriers with limited financial means. Key evidence included carriers' inconsistent statements, inability to prove legitimate gold purchase, and appellant's non-cooperation during investigation. The tribunal determined the appellant was the mastermind, having funded carriers' travel and accommodation. Despite counsel's arguments challenging oral statements' evidentiary value, the tribunal upheld seizure and confiscation as lawful. The appellant's failure to appear before customs authorities and carriers' inability to substantiate gold acquisition source led to dismissal of the appeal, confirming penalties under specified statutory provisions. en-us Thu, 05 Jun 2025 08:25:37 +0530 Thu, 05 Jun 2025 08:25:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89106 CESTAT adjudicated a gold smuggling case involving alleged abetment under Customs Act Sections 112(a) and 112(b). The tribunal found the appellant orchestrated gold smuggling through two carriers with limited financial means. Key evidence included carriers' inconsistent statements, inability to prove legitimate gold purchase, and appellant's non-cooperation during investigation. The tribunal determined the appellant was the mastermind, having funded carriers' travel and accommodation. Despite counsel's arguments challenging oral statements' evidentiary value, the tribunal upheld seizure and confiscation as lawful. The appellant's failure to appear before customs authorities and carriers' inability to substantiate gold acquisition source led to dismissal of the appeal, confirming penalties under specified statutory provisions. Highlights Customs Thu, 05 Jun 2025 08:25:37 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89106