<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1998 (12) TMI 325 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94771</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act requires evidence linking the person to the illicit transport or handling of contraband. On the record, there was no proof that the silver was landed at the relevant place, transported in the jeep, or that the appellant was driving or otherwise concerned with the transaction. Mere suspicion and circumstances short of proof were insufficient to justify penal action, so the penalty could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Dec 2011 16:49:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131830" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (12) TMI 325 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94771</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act requires evidence linking the person to the illicit transport or handling of contraband. On the record, there was no proof that the silver was landed at the relevant place, transported in the jeep, or that the appellant was driving or otherwise concerned with the transaction. Mere suspicion and circumstances short of proof were insufficient to justify penal action, so the penalty could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94771</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>