https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80607 A mere inconsistency in the appellant's statements about tractor ownership was insufficient to prove knowledge, involvement or connivance in transporting contraband, so penal liability could not rest on that basis alone. The penalty order was also legally defective because Section 112 was invoked without specifying the applicable clause, leaving the penal foundation uncertain. As the alleged participation was not established by surrounding circumstances or other implicated persons' statements, and the exact statutory clause was not identified, the confiscation-cum-penalty order could not be sustained and was set aside. en-us Mon, 02 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Jun 2011 18:33:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80607 A mere inconsistency in the appellant's statements about tractor ownership was insufficient to prove knowledge, involvement or connivance in transporting contraband, so penal liability could not rest on that basis alone. The penalty order was also legally defective because Section 112 was invoked without specifying the applicable clause, leaving the penal foundation uncertain. As the alleged participation was not established by surrounding circumstances or other implicated persons' statements, and the exact statutory clause was not identified, the confiscation-cum-penalty order could not be sustained and was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 02 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80607