https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789885 Seized gold could not be treated as foreign-origin smuggled goods merely on the basis of a hearsay statement, call records showing contact, and a CRCL purity report. In the absence of independent corroboration and a reliable basis to accept the statement, the department failed to discharge the initial burden and Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 did not shift the burden to the possessor. As confiscation was unsupported, the connected penalty also lacked a legal foundation. The article further notes that restitution justified release of the seized gold to restore the appellant to the pre-seizure position. en-us Wed, 15 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Apr 2026 08:34:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789885 Seized gold could not be treated as foreign-origin smuggled goods merely on the basis of a hearsay statement, call records showing contact, and a CRCL purity report. In the absence of independent corroboration and a reliable basis to accept the statement, the department failed to discharge the initial burden and Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 did not shift the burden to the possessor. As confiscation was unsupported, the connected penalty also lacked a legal foundation. The article further notes that restitution justified release of the seized gold to restore the appellant to the pre-seizure position. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 15 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789885