#Section 123 Customs Act

CESTAT Kolkata rules that mere possession of unmarked gold, without any corroborating intelligence or border-crossing context, cannot invoke the Section 123 presumption of smuggling. The burden remains squarely on the Revenue to prove intent and illicit movement, reinforcing procedural safeguards for travelers and traders against speculative seizures.

CESTAT Allahabad rules that customs authorities cannot justify seizure of goods based on post-facto evidence; the 'reasonable belief' of smuggling must exist at the time of seizure under Section 110. The judgment sets a critical precedent for importers and enforcement agencies, requiring contemporaneous evidence to uphold seizures.

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.