https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94589 CESTAT held that the seizure of 20 gold biscuits from Appellant A lacked the "reasonable belief" required under s.110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, as the Dept. failed to establish foreign origin or smuggled character of the goods. Mere foreign markings, doubtful purity, city "town seizure" far from any border, and incomplete testing were found insufficient to prove illicit import. Consequently, s.123 was held inapplicable, and the burden of proof did not shift to Appellant A; the Dept. remained obliged to prove smuggling, which it failed to do. Confiscation under s.111(b) and (d) and penalties under s.112(b)(ii) were set aside. The impugned order was quashed and the appeal of Appellant A was allowed, with consequential relief. en-us Fri, 28 Nov 2025 08:24:26 +0530 Fri, 28 Nov 2025 08:24:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94589 CESTAT held that the seizure of 20 gold biscuits from Appellant A lacked the "reasonable belief" required under s.110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, as the Dept. failed to establish foreign origin or smuggled character of the goods. Mere foreign markings, doubtful purity, city "town seizure" far from any border, and incomplete testing were found insufficient to prove illicit import. Consequently, s.123 was held inapplicable, and the burden of proof did not shift to Appellant A; the Dept. remained obliged to prove smuggling, which it failed to do. Confiscation under s.111(b) and (d) and penalties under s.112(b)(ii) were set aside. The impugned order was quashed and the appeal of Appellant A was allowed, with consequential relief. Highlights Customs Fri, 28 Nov 2025 08:24:26 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94589