https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783031 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed under s.112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held that there was no material to establish that the appellant had knowledge that the recovered gold jewellery and cut pieces, kept by a co-noticee, were manufactured from smuggled gold. As mens rea is a necessary precondition for penalty under s.112(b)(i), mere possession or handling without proven knowledge of smuggled origin was insufficient. Relying also on a prior finding in the co-noticee's appeal that the seized jewellery was licitly possessed, the Tribunal held that the allegation of dealing in smuggled gold was unsustainable. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Dec 2025 14:33:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783031 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed under s.112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held that there was no material to establish that the appellant had knowledge that the recovered gold jewellery and cut pieces, kept by a co-noticee, were manufactured from smuggled gold. As mens rea is a necessary precondition for penalty under s.112(b)(i), mere possession or handling without proven knowledge of smuggled origin was insufficient. Relying also on a prior finding in the co-noticee's appeal that the seized jewellery was licitly possessed, the Tribunal held that the allegation of dealing in smuggled gold was unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783031