<?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>2001 (11) TMI 194 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51030</link>
    <description>Foreign-marked gold bars were held not liable to confiscation where purchase vouchers were accepted for part of the seized goods, the remaining records could not be reliably correlated with the seizure, and the incriminating statement of the co-noticee had been retracted without independent corroboration; on that material, the statutory burden under Section 123 was treated as discharged and confiscation and penalty were set aside. By contrast, foreign currency recovered from the co-noticee&#039;s premises was sustained in confiscation, along with the related penalty, because no sufficient basis was shown to dislodge the finding against its release. The differing outcomes turned on the adequacy of documentary proof and corroboration in each seizure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:44:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89509" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (11) TMI 194 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51030</link>
      <description>Foreign-marked gold bars were held not liable to confiscation where purchase vouchers were accepted for part of the seized goods, the remaining records could not be reliably correlated with the seizure, and the incriminating statement of the co-noticee had been retracted without independent corroboration; on that material, the statutory burden under Section 123 was treated as discharged and confiscation and penalty were set aside. By contrast, foreign currency recovered from the co-noticee&#039;s premises was sustained in confiscation, along with the related penalty, because no sufficient basis was shown to dislodge the finding against its release. The differing outcomes turned on the adequacy of documentary proof and corroboration in each seizure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51030</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>