<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Gold smuggling case: absolute confiscation of foreign-marked gold and penalties under Sections 112(b)(i) and 123 Customs Act</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94870</link>
    <description>CESTAT upheld absolute confiscation of 19 foreign-marked gold coins/bars and imposition of penalty under s.112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant and its two partners. The Tribunal held that, as the seized goods were recovered from the appellant&#039;s possession and bore foreign markings, the statutory burden under s.123 lay on the appellant to prove lawful ownership and licit acquisition. The plea that the coins were 15-20 years old and used for worship was unsupported by any evidence. Finding no infirmity in the adjudication, the appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2025 08:41:59 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2025 08:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=870178" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Gold smuggling case: absolute confiscation of foreign-marked gold and penalties under Sections 112(b)(i) and 123 Customs Act</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94870</link>
      <description>CESTAT upheld absolute confiscation of 19 foreign-marked gold coins/bars and imposition of penalty under s.112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant and its two partners. The Tribunal held that, as the seized goods were recovered from the appellant&#039;s possession and bore foreign markings, the statutory burden under s.123 lay on the appellant to prove lawful ownership and licit acquisition. The plea that the coins were 15-20 years old and used for worship was unsupported by any evidence. Finding no infirmity in the adjudication, the appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2025 08:41:59 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94870</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>