https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782844 CESTAT set aside confiscation of town-seized gold and all penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. It held that, in the absence of foreign markings, purity below 99.5%, and any evidence of import, the department failed to establish foreign origin or smuggled nature of the gold; therefore, the statutory burden under Section 123 did not shift to the appellants. Reliance solely on an untested third-party statement, without affording cross-examination, was held impermissible, rendering the allegation of ownership unsustainable. As confiscation of the Indian currency was also found illegal, interest at the applicable rate was directed from the date of seizure until return. en-us Tue, 02 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Dec 2025 08:12:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782844 CESTAT set aside confiscation of town-seized gold and all penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. It held that, in the absence of foreign markings, purity below 99.5%, and any evidence of import, the department failed to establish foreign origin or smuggled nature of the gold; therefore, the statutory burden under Section 123 did not shift to the appellants. Reliance solely on an untested third-party statement, without affording cross-examination, was held impermissible, rendering the allegation of ownership unsustainable. As confiscation of the Indian currency was also found illegal, interest at the applicable rate was directed from the date of seizure until return. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 02 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782844