https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80830 Gold and notified fabrics recovered from the appellants' premises attracted the statutory presumption because the explanation of lawful acquisition was not supported by cogent evidence. On those facts, knowing harbouring and involvement were sufficient to sustain penalty under the Customs Act against the first appellant, while the second appellant's admitted possession justified penalty but not at the original level, as her personal circumstances and the absence of proof of principal smuggling role warranted leniency. Penalty under the Gold (Control) Act was not sustainable against the first appellant because the record did not specifically link him to prohibited possession under that enactment. en-us Mon, 20 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Jun 2011 16:14:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80830 Gold and notified fabrics recovered from the appellants' premises attracted the statutory presumption because the explanation of lawful acquisition was not supported by cogent evidence. On those facts, knowing harbouring and involvement were sufficient to sustain penalty under the Customs Act against the first appellant, while the second appellant's admitted possession justified penalty but not at the original level, as her personal circumstances and the absence of proof of principal smuggling role warranted leniency. Penalty under the Gold (Control) Act was not sustainable against the first appellant because the record did not specifically link him to prohibited possession under that enactment. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 20 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80830