https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269422 Penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act, read with section 4 of the Antiquities and Art Treasure Act, could not rest solely on statements of co-noticees without independent corroboration. The appellant's own statement contained no incriminating admission, and the alleged tenancy-based inference was unreliable because the claimed owner was not the actual owner of the premises. As no independent positive evidence linked the appellant to the seized antiques or supported the smuggling , the penalty was set aside. en-us Fri, 16 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 May 2016 16:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269422 Penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act, read with section 4 of the Antiquities and Art Treasure Act, could not rest solely on statements of co-noticees without independent corroboration. The appellant's own statement contained no incriminating admission, and the alleged tenancy-based inference was unreliable because the claimed owner was not the actual owner of the premises. As no independent positive evidence linked the appellant to the seized antiques or supported the smuggling , the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 16 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269422