https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428012 The tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, as the evidence failed to establish the appellant's knowledge or involvement in the smuggling of gold. The appellant's role was based on uncorroborated statements and printouts from a seized pen drive, which did not prove his connection to the smuggling activities. The tribunal emphasized the importance of proving knowledge or involvement before imposing penalties under Section 112(b), ultimately allowing the appeal and providing consequential relief to the appellant. en-us Mon, 19 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Sep 2022 09:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428012 The tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, as the evidence failed to establish the appellant's knowledge or involvement in the smuggling of gold. The appellant's role was based on uncorroborated statements and printouts from a seized pen drive, which did not prove his connection to the smuggling activities. The tribunal emphasized the importance of proving knowledge or involvement before imposing penalties under Section 112(b), ultimately allowing the appeal and providing consequential relief to the appellant. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 19 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428012