https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778474 Penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act could not be sustained where the seized garments were not proved to be smuggled goods, the consignment was mixed with other goods, and no clear identification linked the appellant's sold garments to the seized items. The appellant had produced Bills of Entry, sale invoice and GST entries to support lawful possession, and the goods were not notified under Section 123 so the burden did not shift to the appellant. On these facts, mere suspicion or foreign-origin markings on some goods was insufficient, and the penalty was set aside. en-us Tue, 16 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Sep 2025 08:32:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778474 Penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act could not be sustained where the seized garments were not proved to be smuggled goods, the consignment was mixed with other goods, and no clear identification linked the appellant's sold garments to the seized items. The appellant had produced Bills of Entry, sale invoice and GST entries to support lawful possession, and the goods were not notified under Section 123 so the burden did not shift to the appellant. On these facts, mere suspicion or foreign-origin markings on some goods was insufficient, and the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 16 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778474