Section 119. Confiscation of goods used for concealing smuggled goods

Judgments on Section 119

• M/S.N.C.Alexender vs The Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 9 Jun 2022. Show cause notices and adjudication orders issued by DRI officers are valid because they are appointed as 'Officers of Customs' under Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022…
• 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…
• Ashok Kumar Goyal Manager vs Noida Customs — CESTAT, 3 Jun 2024. A retracted confessional statement is weak evidence which can at best be used as corroboration and cannot by itself sustain a penalty unless the Department establishes its voluntary character and supports it with…
• 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…