https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784143 Whether seized gold concealed in a vehicle and recovered from an appellant's personal possession was smuggled was determined by applying s.123 of the Customs Act, under which gold is a notified item and the burden to prove licit import/acquisition lies on the claimant; belated documents and retraction of statements were held insufficient, consistent with SC and HC authority requiring unequivocal proof of lawful import. Consequently, confiscation under s.111 was upheld and absolute confiscation sustained. Whether penalties were justified was decided on the finding of knowing involvement in handling, transportation, and possession of liable goods; hence penalties under s.112(b), though low, were reasonable and sustained, and the appeals were dismissed. en-us Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Dec 2025 09:27:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784143 Whether seized gold concealed in a vehicle and recovered from an appellant's personal possession was smuggled was determined by applying s.123 of the Customs Act, under which gold is a notified item and the burden to prove licit import/acquisition lies on the claimant; belated documents and retraction of statements were held insufficient, consistent with SC and HC authority requiring unequivocal proof of lawful import. Consequently, confiscation under s.111 was upheld and absolute confiscation sustained. Whether penalties were justified was decided on the finding of knowing involvement in handling, transportation, and possession of liable goods; hence penalties under s.112(b), though low, were reasonable and sustained, and the appeals were dismissed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784143