Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

Gold Smuggling Case: Burden of Proof Rests on Carrier Under Section 123 of Customs Act, Non-Legitimate Origin Confirmed

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....HC held that under Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962, the burden of proving non-smuggled status of seized goods lies with the person from whose possession the goods were seized. In this case, crude gold bars of foreign origin were confiscated. The CESTAT's order was set aside, with the penalty reduced to Rs. 1,00,000 for the respondent, who was deemed a carrier. The gold valued at Rs. 91,98,090 remains confiscated as the respondent failed to prove legitimate acquisition. The civil miscellaneous appeal was allowed, partially modifying the original penalty while upholding the confiscation order.....