Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

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 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

Gold Seizure Quashed: No Reasonable Belief Under s.110(1), s.123 Inapplicable, Confiscation and Penalties Under s.111, s.112 Set Aside

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CESTAT held that the seizure of 20 gold biscuits from Appellant A lacked the "reasonable belief" required under s.110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, as the Dept. failed to establish foreign origin or smuggled character of the goods. Mere foreign markings, doubtful purity, city "town seizure" far from any border, and incomplete testing were found insufficient to prove illicit import. Consequently, s.123 was held inapplicable, and the burden of proof did not shift to Appellant A; the Dept. remained obliged to prove smuggling, which it failed to do. Confiscation under s.111(b) and (d) and penalties under s.112(b)(ii) were set aside. The impugned order was quashed and the appeal of Appellant A was allowed, with consequential relief.....