https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784781 Whether penalty under s.112(a) and s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable in relation to seized gold jewellery alleged to be smuggled was the dominant issue. The Tribunal held that the appellant's claim of ownership was unsubstantiated and amounted to abetment of dealing with goods already held liable to confiscation, reflected in attempts to pass off the seized jewellery as legitimate items, contradicted by statements and admitted facts, and not salvaged by retraction. It further held s.123 was invocable because the seizure followed specific intelligence and recovery from a concealed compartment, no valid purchase/source documents were produced at seizure, and the onus shifted to the claimant, who failed to rebut smuggling. Penalties were upheld and the appeal was dismissed. en-us Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Jan 2026 09:31:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784781 Whether penalty under s.112(a) and s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable in relation to seized gold jewellery alleged to be smuggled was the dominant issue. The Tribunal held that the appellant's claim of ownership was unsubstantiated and amounted to abetment of dealing with goods already held liable to confiscation, reflected in attempts to pass off the seized jewellery as legitimate items, contradicted by statements and admitted facts, and not salvaged by retraction. It further held s.123 was invocable because the seizure followed specific intelligence and recovery from a concealed compartment, no valid purchase/source documents were produced at seizure, and the onus shifted to the claimant, who failed to rebut smuggling. Penalties were upheld and the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784781