https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54902 The Tribunal upheld the impugned order-in-appeal affirming the confiscation of seized goods and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000. The appellant's argument that the goods were not restricted under Section 123 of the Customs Act was refuted due to lack of evidence establishing legal acquisition. Despite citing legal precedents, the appellant failed to prove lawful possession of the foreign origin goods, as discrepancies in baggage receipts and lack of seller information undermined their claim. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the appellant's arguments were not substantiated by the presented facts and documentation. en-us Tue, 24 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Oct 2010 16:32:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54902 The Tribunal upheld the impugned order-in-appeal affirming the confiscation of seized goods and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000. The appellant's argument that the goods were not restricted under Section 123 of the Customs Act was refuted due to lack of evidence establishing legal acquisition. Despite citing legal precedents, the appellant failed to prove lawful possession of the foreign origin goods, as discrepancies in baggage receipts and lack of seller information undermined their claim. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the appellant's arguments were not substantiated by the presented facts and documentation. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 24 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54902