https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74956 The Tribunal found the evidence against the appellant insufficient to uphold the penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act. The appellant's actions, including seizing and reporting goods, were inconsistent with smuggling activities. The Tribunal deemed the witness statements hearsay and lacking corroboration, emphasizing that hearsay evidence cannot establish guilt. The appeal was allowed, overturning the penalty of Rs. 2500 imposed on the appellant. en-us Tue, 25 Jul 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:02:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74956 The Tribunal found the evidence against the appellant insufficient to uphold the penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act. The appellant's actions, including seizing and reporting goods, were inconsistent with smuggling activities. The Tribunal deemed the witness statements hearsay and lacking corroboration, emphasizing that hearsay evidence cannot establish guilt. The appeal was allowed, overturning the penalty of Rs. 2500 imposed on the appellant. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 25 Jul 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74956