https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52065 The appellant's appeal against the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act was dismissed. Despite raising concerns about denial of cross-examination, the appellant's admission of goods recovery without contesting it weakened their argument. Claims of ownership by another individual lacked evidence, shifting the burden of proof to the appellant. Failure to explain possession and nature of goods led to a presumption against them, resulting in liability under Section 112. The penalty was reduced, emphasizing the need for evidence and explanations to counter adverse presumptions in customs violation cases. en-us Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:39:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52065 The appellant's appeal against the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act was dismissed. Despite raising concerns about denial of cross-examination, the appellant's admission of goods recovery without contesting it weakened their argument. Claims of ownership by another individual lacked evidence, shifting the burden of proof to the appellant. Failure to explain possession and nature of goods led to a presumption against them, resulting in liability under Section 112. The penalty was reduced, emphasizing the need for evidence and explanations to counter adverse presumptions in customs violation cases. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52065