https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94155 The CESTAT allowed the appeals, setting aside penalties under s.112(b) and s.117 of the Customs Act, 1962, and quashing confiscation of seized gold and Indian currency. The Tribunal held the appellants discharged the burden under s.123 by production of invoices when the Revenue failed to respond, and adjudication under s.125 was defective for not offering the statutory option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation; accordingly the goods and currency were not liable to confiscation and s.112(b) penalties could not stand. Further, s.117 penalties were improper where appellants were implicated solely by third-party statements, were denied CDR analysis and opportunity to cross-examine, and no incriminating recovery was made. Appeals allowed; penalties and confiscation set aside. en-us Fri, 14 Nov 2025 09:42:55 +0530 Fri, 14 Nov 2025 09:42:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94155 The CESTAT allowed the appeals, setting aside penalties under s.112(b) and s.117 of the Customs Act, 1962, and quashing confiscation of seized gold and Indian currency. The Tribunal held the appellants discharged the burden under s.123 by production of invoices when the Revenue failed to respond, and adjudication under s.125 was defective for not offering the statutory option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation; accordingly the goods and currency were not liable to confiscation and s.112(b) penalties could not stand. Further, s.117 penalties were improper where appellants were implicated solely by third-party statements, were denied CDR analysis and opportunity to cross-examine, and no incriminating recovery was made. Appeals allowed; penalties and confiscation set aside. Highlights Customs Fri, 14 Nov 2025 09:42:55 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94155