https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268586 The Tribunal allowed the appeals in favor of the appellant, concluding that no penalty could be imposed under section 112 of the Customs Act. The decision was based on the lack of evidence linking the appellant to the confiscated goods and the absence of proof of commission, omission, or abetment leading to the goods' liability for confiscation. The Tribunal emphasized the need for legal proof over strong suspicion and grave doubts, citing a Supreme Court ruling. en-us Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Nov 2015 00:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268586 The Tribunal allowed the appeals in favor of the appellant, concluding that no penalty could be imposed under section 112 of the Customs Act. The decision was based on the lack of evidence linking the appellant to the confiscated goods and the absence of proof of commission, omission, or abetment leading to the goods' liability for confiscation. The Tribunal emphasized the need for legal proof over strong suspicion and grave doubts, citing a Supreme Court ruling. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268586