https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73005 Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be sustained on vague or unsupported findings. For clause (a), the show cause notice contained no allegation of abetment; for clause (b), the record had to show that the person knowingly acquired, possessed, or dealt with goods believed to be liable to confiscation. The mere fact that the seized cameras were not confiscated did not by itself rule out penalty, but the penalty finding still had to rest on clear evidence and definite conclusions. Because the findings on collusion and faulty accounting were not properly supported, the penalty order could not stand and the question of penalty had to be re-adjudicated afresh. en-us Tue, 30 Jun 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 May 2011 15:03:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73005 Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be sustained on vague or unsupported findings. For clause (a), the show cause notice contained no allegation of abetment; for clause (b), the record had to show that the person knowingly acquired, possessed, or dealt with goods believed to be liable to confiscation. The mere fact that the seized cameras were not confiscated did not by itself rule out penalty, but the penalty finding still had to rest on clear evidence and definite conclusions. Because the findings on collusion and faulty accounting were not properly supported, the penalty order could not stand and the question of penalty had to be re-adjudicated afresh. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 30 Jun 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73005