Topic

Section 112 Customs Act

2 articlesLatest June 2026
Body Concealment of Gold Establishes Presumptive Smuggling Intent Under Section 111(d) & (i) Customs Act 1962 : CESTAT Kolkata
Case Law Analysis
|Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Body Concealment of Gold Establishes Presumptive Smuggling Intent Under Section 111(d) & (i) Customs Act 1962 : CESTAT Kolkata

CESTAT Kolkata ruled that secretly smuggling gold via internal body concealment, without any documentation, constitutes conclusive evidence of smuggling intent under Sections 111(d) and (i) of the Customs Act 1962, triggering automatic confiscation and penalty. This sets a critical precedent for airport customs enforcement, shifting the burden to travelers to explain clandestine transport of high-value goods.

Section 123 Customs Act | Revenue Must Prove Foreign Origin of Goods for Confiscation: CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Penalty
Case Law Analysis
|Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Section 123 Customs Act | Revenue Must Prove Foreign Origin of Goods for Confiscation: CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Penalty

CESTAT Kolkata ruled that the Revenue failed to discharge its burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act to establish the foreign origin of seized peas, leading to the quashing of confiscation and penalty. The judgment reinforces that confiscation under the Customs Act requires strict proof of foreign origin, not mere suspicion.