https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99240 Section 112(a) and 112(b) were held to cover both abetment or omission rendering goods liable to confiscation and possession or dealing with goods known or believed to be liable to confiscation, so the show-cause notice was valid where it specified the petitioner's role in smuggling gold paste without declaration. The Court rejected the objection based on non-specification of the precise clause, holding that the notice gave adequate particulars and was answered on merits. Smuggled gold imported in breach of customs restrictions was treated as prohibited goods, so penalty under Section 112(i) was also sustained. The writ petition was dismissed and the penalty order upheld. en-us Tue, 28 Apr 2026 07:29:33 +0530 Tue, 28 Apr 2026 07:29:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99240 Section 112(a) and 112(b) were held to cover both abetment or omission rendering goods liable to confiscation and possession or dealing with goods known or believed to be liable to confiscation, so the show-cause notice was valid where it specified the petitioner's role in smuggling gold paste without declaration. The Court rejected the objection based on non-specification of the precise clause, holding that the notice gave adequate particulars and was answered on merits. Smuggled gold imported in breach of customs restrictions was treated as prohibited goods, so penalty under Section 112(i) was also sustained. The writ petition was dismissed and the penalty order upheld. Highlights Customs Tue, 28 Apr 2026 07:29:33 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99240