Section 121. Confiscation of sale-proceeds of smuggled goods

Judgments on Section 121

• 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…
• Nosch Labs Pvt Ltd vs Hyderabad - Customs — CESTAT, 11 Mar 2022. Section 113(d) of the Customs Act applies only where the export of goods is itself prohibited by law and only to export goods not yet out of India; a notification under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act…
• 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…
• Shri Tara Chand Jain vs Commissioner Of Customs (Port) — CESTAT, 22 May 2026. Where DGFT has issued EODCs for the authorisations and the Customs Bond Cell has itself redeemed the bonds, the duty demand fails and the extended period under Section 28(4) is not invokable because the facts were…
• Bank Of India vs Shri Rajendra Vitthal Shinde And Ors — Bombay High Court, 24 Feb 2023. Under section 142A of the Customs Act, 1962, the first charge for duty, penalty and interest under the Act is expressly subject to the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (among other statutes), so a secured creditor proceeding under…
• M/S.Unik Traders vs The Additional Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 29 Nov 2021. Investigation and assessment are distinct functions: the DRI may only gather and pass on intelligence, while the 'proper officer' under Section 2(34) read with Notification No.40/2012-Cus (N.T.) alone may assess Bills…