https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436807 Penalty under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act was held unsustainable because there was no independent evidence linking the appellant to possession, concealment, removal, purchase, sale, or other dealing with the seized goods. The case rested mainly on a co-accused's statement and prior penalties, but there was no search, recovery, summons, or recorded statement from the appellant. In the absence of corroboration, the co-accused statement alone was insufficient to establish conscious involvement in smuggling. Mens rea and a clear nexus with confiscable goods were treated as essential for penalty, and the penalty was set aside. en-us Mon, 17 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Nov 2023 12:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436807 Penalty under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act was held unsustainable because there was no independent evidence linking the appellant to possession, concealment, removal, purchase, sale, or other dealing with the seized goods. The case rested mainly on a co-accused's statement and prior penalties, but there was no search, recovery, summons, or recorded statement from the appellant. In the absence of corroboration, the co-accused statement alone was insufficient to establish conscious involvement in smuggling. Mens rea and a clear nexus with confiscable goods were treated as essential for penalty, and the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 17 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436807