Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable when the appellant's alleged involvement was based mainly on third-party worksheets, emails and statements, without supply of relied upon documents, cross-examination or independent corroboration.
Analysis: The appellant's role was derived from printouts and emails recovered from the residence of a third party. The relied upon documents were not supplied despite requests, vitiating the adjudication on principles of natural justice. The record did not show that the appellant's premises were searched or that his statement was recorded. No independent evidence established that he acquired possession of, dealt with, or physically participated in handling the smuggled gold, or that he knew or had reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111. The statements of co-noticees and third-party material remained uncorroborated and were not sufficient, by themselves, to fasten penal liability under Section 112(b).
Conclusion: The penalty under Section 112(b)(i) was not sustainable and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.