#Section 123

CESTAT Kolkata set aside confiscation of unmarked gold seized from a domestic passenger, ruling revenue must first prove foreign origin before Section 123's reverse burden applies. The tribunal held that possession of unmarked gold on a domestic flight alone cannot trigger the smuggling presumption without foundational evidence of foreign source.

CESTAT Kolkata set aside the gold confiscation, ruling that concealment and missing documents alone do not prove smuggling without foreign origin proof. This clarifies the customs burden under Section 111(b) of the Customs Act 1962, impacting traders.

Customs officials must possess a reasonable belief before seizing goods, and the onus under Sec 123 cannot be shifted to the accused without proper justification. This ruling curtails arbitrary confiscation of gold and safeguards importers from unjust seizure.

CESTAT Kolkata holds that mere control over premises where smuggled gold is found, coupled with inability to prove lawful possession, suffices to impose penalty under Section 112 - shifting the burden to the possessor to explain lawful origin. This clarifies that statutory liability under customs law extends beyond ownership to de facto control, impacting warehouse operators, agents, and third-party custodians.

CESTAT Allahabad rules that a mere hearsay admission under Section 108 of the Customs Act, without corroborative evidence like foreign markings, cannot establish smuggling under Section 123. The ruling underscores the need for tangible proof beyond oral statements to confiscate goods, impacting customs enforcement and importers' rights.

Bombay HC Aurangabad Bench rules that a tenant’s deposit of rent arrears before the first hearing under Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Control Act defeats eviction on grounds of default. The ruling reinforces tenant protections by mandating strict compliance with statutory deposit timelines to avoid eviction.

Supreme Court holds that statutory regularisation of unauthorized occupation under Section 123 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act prevails over private purchase and Section 143 declaration, establishing non-obstante effect of socio-economic land reform provisions.

The Customs Appellate Tribunal holds that where gold lacks foreign marking and the accused is not the possessor or owner, the burden under Section 123 shifts to the Revenue.