https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426378 Penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act requires proof of active or physical dealing with goods liable to confiscation and knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. Mere business association or suspicion does not establish penal liability. Where allegations rest solely on a co-noticee's statement, without independent documentary or other corroborative material, and cross-examination is not granted, that statement cannot safely support the penalty. In the absence of proof connecting the appellant to the alleged smuggled gold or establishing conscious involvement, the penalty was set aside. en-us Fri, 12 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Aug 2022 09:05:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426378 Penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act requires proof of active or physical dealing with goods liable to confiscation and knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. Mere business association or suspicion does not establish penal liability. Where allegations rest solely on a co-noticee's statement, without independent documentary or other corroborative material, and cross-examination is not granted, that statement cannot safely support the penalty. In the absence of proof connecting the appellant to the alleged smuggled gold or establishing conscious involvement, the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 12 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426378