Section 112(b) penalty on retracted statement alone fails where no recovery or independent corroboration links the appellant to seized gold.

Penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not supportable where gold bars are not recovered from the appellant's possession, the case rests mainly on a statement recorded after arrest that was promptly retracted, and no independent corroboration establishes involvement in keeping, concealing, or dealing with the seized gold. On the stated facts, the evidentiary foundation for imposing penalty was treated as insufficient, and the appellant was given the benefit of doubt.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable in the absence of recovery from the appellant, independent corroboration, and in view of the retracted statement.

Analysis: The gold bars were not recovered from the appellant's possession. The material against him consisted mainly of a statement made after arrest, which was retracted immediately after release from jail. No independent evidence was found to establish his involvement in keeping, concealing, or dealing with the seized gold. On these facts, the evidentiary basis for penalty was held insufficient.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

---