https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776468 The CESTAT held that non-compliance with mandatory procedure under Section 138B of the Customs Act rendered the key statement inadmissible. Without this statement, there was no evidence to prove the gold was smuggled or of foreign origin. The appellant produced valid invoices and seller confirmations, satisfying the burden of proof under Section 123. Consequently, the confiscation and penalty under Section 112(b) were unwarranted. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed. en-us Wed, 06 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Aug 2025 08:32:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776468 The CESTAT held that non-compliance with mandatory procedure under Section 138B of the Customs Act rendered the key statement inadmissible. Without this statement, there was no evidence to prove the gold was smuggled or of foreign origin. The appellant produced valid invoices and seller confirmations, satisfying the burden of proof under Section 123. Consequently, the confiscation and penalty under Section 112(b) were unwarranted. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 06 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776468