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 penalties reduced for carriers lacking beneficial ownership under Section 112(b)(i) Customs Act

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CESTAT allowed appeals in part regarding penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of Customs Act, 1962 for gold smuggling. Appellants were found carrying gold biscuits with foreign markings without licit purchase documents, claiming they acted as carriers for unidentified persons for monetary consideration. Revenue failed to prove appellants were ultimate beneficiaries of seized gold. Appellants did not contest absolute confiscation of gold and sought only penalty reduction. CESTAT held appellants were mere carriers, not actual beneficiaries, warranting lenient view. Considering circumstances and Revenue's failure to establish beneficial ownership, penalties reduced from Rs. 3,13,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 per appellant. Appeals disposed of with partial relief granted on penalty quantum while upholding confiscation.....