https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93093 The appeal was allowed, and the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, for ownership of smuggled cardamom was set aside. The court found that there was a lack of corroborative evidence linking the appellant to the smuggling activities, and relying solely on statements of co-accused drivers was insufficient to impose penalties. The appellant was given the benefit of the doubt due to the absence of concrete evidence supporting the allegations, emphasizing the necessity of corroborative evidence in such cases. en-us Thu, 23 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:09:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93093 The appeal was allowed, and the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, for ownership of smuggled cardamom was set aside. The court found that there was a lack of corroborative evidence linking the appellant to the smuggling activities, and relying solely on statements of co-accused drivers was insufficient to impose penalties. The appellant was given the benefit of the doubt due to the absence of concrete evidence supporting the allegations, emphasizing the necessity of corroborative evidence in such cases. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 23 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93093