https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119112 The tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act on the appellant for ownership claim rejection and lack of evidence. The rejection of the ownership claim by both authorities was deemed insufficient to justify the penalty under the Act, as there was no evidence linking the appellant to smuggling activities. The judgment emphasizes the necessity of substantial evidence to support penalty imposition and underscores the importance of establishing a clear connection between the accused and the alleged offense in customs cases. en-us Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jul 2012 10:54:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119112 The tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act on the appellant for ownership claim rejection and lack of evidence. The rejection of the ownership claim by both authorities was deemed insufficient to justify the penalty under the Act, as there was no evidence linking the appellant to smuggling activities. The judgment emphasizes the necessity of substantial evidence to support penalty imposition and underscores the importance of establishing a clear connection between the accused and the alleged offense in customs cases. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119112