https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87989 Penalties for alleged contraband involvement failed because the record did not show positive evidence that either appellant knowingly accepted, carried, or dealt with the goods. Mere participation in a transport business was insufficient to establish conscious possession or reason to believe, and the assumed defect in consignor and consignee particulars did not cure the evidentiary gap. Prior COFEPOSA detention was irrelevant because it did not prove knowledge, involvement, or abetment in relation to the seized goods. The penalty orders were therefore set aside, with consequential relief. en-us Tue, 10 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:55:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87989 Penalties for alleged contraband involvement failed because the record did not show positive evidence that either appellant knowingly accepted, carried, or dealt with the goods. Mere participation in a transport business was insufficient to establish conscious possession or reason to believe, and the assumed defect in consignor and consignee particulars did not cure the evidentiary gap. Prior COFEPOSA detention was irrelevant because it did not prove knowledge, involvement, or abetment in relation to the seized goods. The penalty orders were therefore set aside, with consequential relief. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 10 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87989