Harbouring under Customs law: evidence-based findings left the penalty undisturbed and no substantial question arose.

Penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act was examined in reference proceedings, with the dispute turning on whether the applicant's conduct amounted to "harbouring" and whether any substantial question of law arose. The analysis relied on the factual record, including access to the premises, seizure of gold strings, and the retracted and reaffirmed confession, and treated the Tribunal's conclusion as one based on appreciation of evidence. On that basis, the statutory expression was considered wide enough to cover the proved conduct, so no substantial question of law was found for reference and the penalty order was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be interfered with in reference proceedings, and whether the applicant's conduct fell within the scope of "harbouring" for the purpose of that provision.

Analysis: The applicant's involvement was assessed on the facts, including his opening of the premises, the seizure of the gold strings, and the evidence surrounding the retracted and reaffirmed confession. The finding turned on appreciation of evidence and the scope of the expression "harbouring" used in Section 112(b). On that appreciation, no substantial question of law was found to arise from the Tribunal's order.

Conclusion: The reference application was rejected and the penalty order was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Tribunal's conclusion rests on appreciation of evidence and the statutory expression relied upon is wide enough to cover the proved conduct, no substantial question of law arises for reference.

---