https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410357 Penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act requires proof of conscious knowledge or mens rea, and retracted statements without independent corroboration are insufficient. On the facts described, the absence of reliable recovery evidence, defects in the panchnama, and no proof that the appellants knowingly dealt with smuggled rough diamonds meant the penalty could not be sustained in the heavy original quantum. The confiscation remained undisturbed, but the Tribunal treated the appellants' role as limited and reduced the penalty to a proportionate level of Rs. 1,00,000 each. en-us Thu, 29 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Aug 2022 12:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410357 Penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act requires proof of conscious knowledge or mens rea, and retracted statements without independent corroboration are insufficient. On the facts described, the absence of reliable recovery evidence, defects in the panchnama, and no proof that the appellants knowingly dealt with smuggled rough diamonds meant the penalty could not be sustained in the heavy original quantum. The confiscation remained undisturbed, but the Tribunal treated the appellants' role as limited and reduced the penalty to a proportionate level of Rs. 1,00,000 each. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 29 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410357