https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91257 Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 was held unsustainable where the evidence did not show actual taking of delivery of smuggled goods or conscious involvement with them. The appellant's earlier concern with similar goods, and any mere proposal or readiness to collect goods from the transport company, was insufficient to establish possession, dealing, knowledge, or reason to believe that the goods were smuggled. In the absence of material linking the appellant to the goods in question, the statutory ingredients for penalty were not satisfied, and the penalty was set aside. en-us Mon, 17 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:20:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91257 Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 was held unsustainable where the evidence did not show actual taking of delivery of smuggled goods or conscious involvement with them. The appellant's earlier concern with similar goods, and any mere proposal or readiness to collect goods from the transport company, was insufficient to establish possession, dealing, knowledge, or reason to believe that the goods were smuggled. In the absence of material linking the appellant to the goods in question, the statutory ingredients for penalty were not satisfied, and the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 17 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91257