https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426378 Penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act requires proof of active dealing with goods liable to confiscation and knowledge or reason to believe that they were smuggled. The article states that the penalty was based mainly on a co-noticee's statement, with no independent corroborative evidence, documents, or admissions linking the appellant to the gold. It also notes that cross-examination of the co-noticee was not allowed. On that basis, the statement could not safely sustain penal liability, as mere association or suspicion does not establish conscious involvement. The penalty was therefore held unsustainable and 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 dealing with goods liable to confiscation and knowledge or reason to believe that they were smuggled. The article states that the penalty was based mainly on a co-noticee's statement, with no independent corroborative evidence, documents, or admissions linking the appellant to the gold. It also notes that cross-examination of the co-noticee was not allowed. On that basis, the statement could not safely sustain penal liability, as mere association or suspicion does not establish conscious involvement. The penalty was therefore held unsustainable and set aside. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 12 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426378