https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782103 CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside confiscation of seized peas and penalties under s.112 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that peas are not specified goods under s.123, so the burden to prove smuggled nature lay entirely on the department. Evidence showed even the Market Assistant admitted it was not possible to distinguish Indian from Nepali peas, and no expert test or reliable material established foreign origin. Relying on earlier Tribunal precedent, CESTAT held that mere doubts or transaction anomalies cannot sustain confiscation without proof of foreign origin, and thus the impugned order was without merit. en-us Tue, 20 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Nov 2025 08:55:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782103 CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside confiscation of seized peas and penalties under s.112 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that peas are not specified goods under s.123, so the burden to prove smuggled nature lay entirely on the department. Evidence showed even the Market Assistant admitted it was not possible to distinguish Indian from Nepali peas, and no expert test or reliable material established foreign origin. Relying on earlier Tribunal precedent, CESTAT held that mere doubts or transaction anomalies cannot sustain confiscation without proof of foreign origin, and thus the impugned order was without merit. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 20 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782103