TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the personal penalty imposed on the truck driver for transporting ball bearings was sustainable in the absence of material showing knowledge that the goods were smuggled; (ii) whether the personal penalty imposed on the other appellant could be upheld when it rested only on the uncorroborated statement of the co-accused.
Issue (i): Whether the personal penalty imposed on the truck driver for transporting ball bearings was sustainable in the absence of material showing knowledge that the goods were smuggled.
Analysis: The only established fact was that the appellant was driving the truck carrying ball bearings. Ball bearings were openly available in India as an OGL item, and there was no material showing that he knew or had reason to believe that the goods were smuggled.
Conclusion: The penalty on the truck driver was not sustainable and was set aside.
Issue (ii): Whether the personal penalty imposed on the other appellant could be upheld when it rested only on the uncorroborated statement of the co-accused.
Analysis: The allegation against this appellant was based on the statement of the driver alone, while the appellant denied giving any such direction. In the absence of corroboration, the statement of the co-accused was insufficient to justify imposition of penalty.
Conclusion: The penalty on the other appellant was not sustainable and was set aside.
Final Conclusion: Both appeals succeeded and the personal penalties were quashed, while the confiscation of the goods remained unaltered.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
