https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790169 Penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires proof that a person dealt with goods knowing, or having reason to believe, that they were liable to confiscation. The logistics company transported sealed consignments booked as garments on invoice basis, cooperated when one consignment was intercepted, and followed its standard operating procedure for the remaining consignments. A communication that did not clearly require circulation to all branches and a mere internal procedural lapse were insufficient to establish mens rea, deliberate defiance, or conscious disregard of law. On these facts, the penalty was not sustainable and was set aside. en-us Fri, 17 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Apr 2026 08:48:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790169 Penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires proof that a person dealt with goods knowing, or having reason to believe, that they were liable to confiscation. The logistics company transported sealed consignments booked as garments on invoice basis, cooperated when one consignment was intercepted, and followed its standard operating procedure for the remaining consignments. A communication that did not clearly require circulation to all branches and a mere internal procedural lapse were insufficient to establish mens rea, deliberate defiance, or conscious disregard of law. On these facts, the penalty was not sustainable and was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 17 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790169