https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428278 Penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires proof that a person was concerned in dealing with smuggled goods, such as carrying, depositing, concealing, selling, purchasing, or otherwise handling them, and also knew or had reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111. Mere financing activity, without evidence of physical dealing, participation in movement of the goods, or knowledge of their smuggling use, is insufficient. The analysis also aligns this requirement with the approach under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, emphasising that mens rea remains essential for penalty. en-us Mon, 19 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Sep 2022 14:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428278 Penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires proof that a person was concerned in dealing with smuggled goods, such as carrying, depositing, concealing, selling, purchasing, or otherwise handling them, and also knew or had reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111. Mere financing activity, without evidence of physical dealing, participation in movement of the goods, or knowledge of their smuggling use, is insufficient. The analysis also aligns this requirement with the approach under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, emphasising that mens rea remains essential for penalty. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 19 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428278