https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781994 CESTAT Kolkata held that confiscation of seized betel nuts and penalties under s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 were unsustainable. The Revenue relied solely on an ARDF test report to allege foreign origin and smuggled nature of the goods. The Tribunal found that ARDF lacked the necessary accreditation and infrastructure to determine foreign origin and that its report had no evidentiary value. As betel nuts are not notified under s.123, the burden remained on the Revenue, which failed to produce tangible or cogent evidence. Finding the allegations unsubstantiated, CESTAT set aside confiscation and penalties, allowing the appeal. en-us Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Nov 2025 08:57:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781994 CESTAT Kolkata held that confiscation of seized betel nuts and penalties under s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 were unsustainable. The Revenue relied solely on an ARDF test report to allege foreign origin and smuggled nature of the goods. The Tribunal found that ARDF lacked the necessary accreditation and infrastructure to determine foreign origin and that its report had no evidentiary value. As betel nuts are not notified under s.123, the burden remained on the Revenue, which failed to produce tangible or cogent evidence. Finding the allegations unsubstantiated, CESTAT set aside confiscation and penalties, allowing the appeal. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781994