Section 123. Burden of proof in certain cases

Judgments on Section 123

• Cc Sea Ch - Ii vs Poddar Global Limited — CESTAT, 8 Sep 2026. Where newsprint is imported and warehoused by a non-RNI registered entity prior to the amendment of FTP policy on 03.06.2016, and subsequently sold to RNI-registered actual users who clear it on filing ex-bond Bills of…
• Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) Lko. vs Anand Navalchand Pugaliya — Allahabad High Court, 2 Sep 2026. Reasonable belief backed by substantive evidence of foreign origin is a sine qua non for seizure and for shifting the burden of proof under Section 123; mere suspicion is insufficient, and the customs authorities must…
• Uday Shankar Rai vs Commissioner-Kolkata(Admn Airport) — CESTAT, 11 Jun 2026. Where gold notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 is seized, the onus lies on the person from whose possession it is taken to prove bona fide procurement or possession, and ingenious concealment of the gold…
• Navnath Zanje vs Chennai Iii — CESTAT, 13 Mar 2026. Where gold is seized under reasonable belief that it is smuggled, Section 123 casts the burden of proving it is not smuggled on the person from whose possession it was seized even if the gold is melted and bears no…
• Vishwajit Deshmukh vs Mumbai-Prev — CESTAT, 20 Aug 2026. A retracted statement whose maker is denied for cross-examination despite a specific request cannot be relied upon as legal evidence under Section 138B of the Customs Act, and confiscation or penalty resting solely on…
• Lucknow Prev vs Narpat Singh — CESTAT, 11 Aug 2026. Gold cannot be confiscated as smuggled goods on the basis of uncorroborated or retracted statements alone; absent foreign markings or independent evidence of foreign origin, the burden of proof under Section 123 remains…
• -Kolkata(Prev) vs Shri Gouse Gaffar Shaikh — CESTAT, 3 Jul 2026. Where exotic birds and animals are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, the burden lies on the Revenue to prove by tangible and corroborative evidence that they were smuggled, and mere possession or…
• Shri Pawan Kumar vs -Shillong(Preventive) — CESTAT, 17 Jun 2026. Where seized goods are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, the onus of proving that they are of foreign origin lies on the Revenue, and mere seizure on a belief or suspicion of foreign origin cannot…
• Mahendra Kumar Thakker vs Commissioner Of Customs Preventive — CESTAT, 23 Apr 2026. A person found in conscious concealed possession of gold who fails to discharge the burden of proof under section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot escape confiscation and penalty under section 112(b) on mere…
• Kapoor Watch Co Pvt Ltd vs Principal Commissioner, Customs… — CESTAT, 19 Jan 2026. A statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be relied upon in adjudication unless, as mandated by section 138B, its maker is examined before the adjudicating authority, the authority admits the…
• M/S Bhagwati Products Limited vs C.C. Noida — CESTAT, 12 Dec 2025. Equity has no place in the interpretation of a fiscal statute — 'there is no room for any intendment... there is no equity about a tax...
• Shri Samsir Uddin vs -Siliguri Commissionerate — CESTAT, 15 Oct 2025. Where goods are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the department bears the burden of proving smuggled/illegal import, and in the absence of evidence a mere documentary discrepancy such as a wrong…
• Shri Ritesh Soni vs Lucknow Prev — CESTAT, 5 Aug 2025. A carrier who, per his corroborated Section 108 statement, knowingly transports smuggled gold is liable to penalty under Section 112(b) even though he is neither the owner nor the claimant of the goods.
• Shri Biplab Karmakar vs -Kolkata(Prev) — CESTAT, 28 Feb 2025. An Order-in-Appeal passed beyond the six-month period under Section 128A(4A) without a plausible explanation for the delay must be set aside, and the burden of proving that gold seized deep inside Indian territory is…
• Encee International Nsez vs Ce & Cgst Noida — CESTAT, 9 Jan 2025. Expiry of an SEZ unit's LOA is a default within the Development Commissioner's jurisdiction under the SEZ Act and Rules, and without a specific Customs Act contravention and a show cause notice to the true owner, goods…
• Yamal Manojbhai vs Union Of India — Supreme Court of India, 4 May 2023. Watches being goods to which Section 123 applies, the proviso to Section 127B bars recourse to the Settlement Commission for cases involving their illicit importation, though here the Bench's divergence of opinion led…
• Mr Nandeesha N vs Union Of India — Karnataka High Court, 28 Aug 2026. In a chain smuggling operation, non-recovery of contraband from an accused's person is not by itself a ground to quash proceedings at the threshold, for 'innocence is a defence to be demonstrated in the proceedings, not…
• M/S. Millions Fashion vs The Customs — Madras High Court, 19 Feb 2020. A settlement applicant under Section 127B must maintain a clear and consistent stand on its admitted liability, and where the Settlement Commission rejects an application solely because of an unexplained change of…