Corroboration required for customs penalty based on co-accused statement; suspicion alone was insufficient to sustain liability.

Penal proceedings under the Customs Act were treated as quasi-criminal, so a co-accused's statement required corroboration in material particulars before penalty could be sustained. As no incriminating material was found in the appellant's residential or business premises and no independent evidence supported the statement, suspicion alone was held insufficient to replace proof. The penalty under Section 112 was therefore not warranted by law and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act was sustainable on the basis of a co-accused's statement, in the absence of corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The proceedings were held to be quasi-criminal in nature. The statement attributed to the co-accused was treated as requiring corroboration in material particulars. No incriminating material was found in the search of the appellant's residential or business premises, and no corroborative evidence supported the co-accused's version. The statement at best raised suspicion, but suspicion was held insufficient to substitute proof.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act was held to be not warranted by law and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

---