Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
CESTAT adjudicated a case involving alleged gold smuggling from China via Bhutan. After comprehensive review, the tribunal found insufficient evidence to substantiate smuggling charges against the appellant. The statements of three intercepted persons were deemed inadequate to establish direct involvement in illicit gold transportation. Critically, no corroborative evidence was presented by revenue authorities to substantiate the smuggling allegations. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, and allowed the appellant's appeal, emphasizing the necessity of concrete proof in customs contraventions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.