https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81298 The Tribunal set aside the order imposing a penalty on the appellant under Sec. 112(b) of the Customs Act. It found the evidence insufficient to prove his involvement, noting the retracted statement lacked corroboration. The Tribunal criticized procedural lapses in the investigation and emphasized that the appellant's agreement to abet in the future did not constitute an offense under Section 112(b). The penalty was deemed unsustainable due to the lack of corroborative evidence and procedural deficiencies. en-us Fri, 19 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:50:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81298 The Tribunal set aside the order imposing a penalty on the appellant under Sec. 112(b) of the Customs Act. It found the evidence insufficient to prove his involvement, noting the retracted statement lacked corroboration. The Tribunal criticized procedural lapses in the investigation and emphasized that the appellant's agreement to abet in the future did not constitute an offense under Section 112(b). The penalty was deemed unsustainable due to the lack of corroborative evidence and procedural deficiencies. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 19 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81298