Co-accused statement without corroboration cannot sustain customs penalty absent proof of conscious involvement

Penalty under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act was held unsustainable because there was no independent evidence linking the appellant to possession, concealment, removal, purchase, sale, or other dealing with the seized goods. The case rested mainly on a co-accused's statement and prior penalties, but there was no search, recovery, summons, or recorded statement from the appellant. In the absence of corroboration, the co-accused statement alone was insufficient to establish conscious involvement in smuggling. Mens rea and a clear nexus with confiscable goods were treated as essential for penalty, and the penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained against the appellant in the absence of independent evidence of his possession, dealing, or conscious involvement with the seized goods, and without corroboration of the co-accused statement.

Analysis: The penalty was founded essentially on the statement of a co-accused and past penalties, but there was no search, recovery, summons under Section 108, or recorded statement of the appellant. The evidence did not show that the appellant acquired possession of, or was in any way concerned with, carrying, removing, depositing, concealing, selling, purchasing, or otherwise dealing with the goods. The statement of the co-accused, without corroborative material, was held insufficient to fasten liability for smuggling. The decision also treated mens rea and a nexus with confiscable goods as essential ingredients for penalty under Section 112(b).

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 112(b)(ii) was not sustainable and was set aside.

---