https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765040 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal against penalty imposed under Section 112(a) and (b) of Customs Act, 1962 for allegedly abetting gold smuggling. The tribunal found that except for statements of two co-accused persons, no corroborative evidence existed to establish appellant's role in the offence. Since penalty under Section 112 requires proof that person committed acts rendering goods liable for confiscation, and only statements without supporting evidence were available, the penalty was held unsustainable and set aside. en-us Thu, 23 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Jan 2025 08:44:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765040 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal against penalty imposed under Section 112(a) and (b) of Customs Act, 1962 for allegedly abetting gold smuggling. The tribunal found that except for statements of two co-accused persons, no corroborative evidence existed to establish appellant's role in the offence. Since penalty under Section 112 requires proof that person committed acts rendering goods liable for confiscation, and only statements without supporting evidence were available, the penalty was held unsustainable and set aside. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 23 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765040