https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427971 Penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act was held unsustainable where the person was alleged only to have financed funds, but there was no reliable proof that he knowingly dealt with goods liable to confiscation under Section 111. The material relied on consisted mainly of retracted third-party statements and a printout from a pen-drive seized from another person, without independent corroboration. As the record did not establish physical dealing with smuggled goods or knowledge that the funds were used for smuggling, the penalty was set aside. The stated principle is that Section 112(b) requires proof of knowledge or reason to believe, together with actual concern in dealing with confiscable goods, on the basis of credible evidence. en-us Mon, 19 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Sep 2022 07:39:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427971 Penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act was held unsustainable where the person was alleged only to have financed funds, but there was no reliable proof that he knowingly dealt with goods liable to confiscation under Section 111. The material relied on consisted mainly of retracted third-party statements and a printout from a pen-drive seized from another person, without independent corroboration. As the record did not establish physical dealing with smuggled goods or knowledge that the funds were used for smuggling, the penalty was set aside. The stated principle is that Section 112(b) requires proof of knowledge or reason to believe, together with actual concern in dealing with confiscable goods, on the basis of credible evidence. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 19 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427971