https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794051 Six gold bars were not liable to confiscation under Sections 111(b) and 111(d) of the Customs Act because no contemporaneous objective material showed smuggled character or foreign origin. The bars bore no discernible foreign markings or serial numbers, the alleged inscriptions were said to have been defaced, and the purity report was not treated as determinative. In the absence of reasonable belief under Section 110(1), the burden under Section 123 did not shift to the appellants, and uncorroborated statements were insufficient. Penalties under Section 112(b)(i) also failed because confiscability was not established and conscious involvement or guilty knowledge was not proved. The confiscation and penalties were set aside. en-us Wed, 24 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Jun 2026 09:28:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794051 Six gold bars were not liable to confiscation under Sections 111(b) and 111(d) of the Customs Act because no contemporaneous objective material showed smuggled character or foreign origin. The bars bore no discernible foreign markings or serial numbers, the alleged inscriptions were said to have been defaced, and the purity report was not treated as determinative. In the absence of reasonable belief under Section 110(1), the burden under Section 123 did not shift to the appellants, and uncorroborated statements were insufficient. Penalties under Section 112(b)(i) also failed because confiscability was not established and conscious involvement or guilty knowledge was not proved. The confiscation and penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 24 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794051