https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51153 Unexplained possession of foreign-marked ball bearings from an office-cum-godown, coupled with fictitious consignors and consignees and no valid documents of lawful acquisition, justified an inference of smuggled goods and confiscation under the Customs Act. The possessor's claim of being only a transporter was rejected because bogus GRs and invoices, together with surrounding circumstances, supplied circumstantial proof of knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. On that basis, penalty under Section 112(b) was also upheld. The confiscation and penalty were sustained, and the appeal failed on merits. en-us Mon, 11 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:35:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51153 Unexplained possession of foreign-marked ball bearings from an office-cum-godown, coupled with fictitious consignors and consignees and no valid documents of lawful acquisition, justified an inference of smuggled goods and confiscation under the Customs Act. The possessor's claim of being only a transporter was rejected because bogus GRs and invoices, together with surrounding circumstances, supplied circumstantial proof of knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. On that basis, penalty under Section 112(b) was also upheld. The confiscation and penalty were sustained, and the appeal failed on merits. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 11 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51153