https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790614 Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 was held unsustainable where there was no proof that the appellant had knowledge of the alleged undervaluation or had consciously ated in any act rendering the goods liable to confiscation. The record also did not independently connect him with the offending conduct. Statements recorded during investigation could not be treated as reliable evidence because they were not tested in compliance with Section 138B, and no incriminating documents were recovered to support the charge. On this basis, the penalty order was set aside and consequential relief followed. en-us Mon, 27 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Apr 2026 07:29:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790614 Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 was held unsustainable where there was no proof that the appellant had knowledge of the alleged undervaluation or had consciously ated in any act rendering the goods liable to confiscation. The record also did not independently connect him with the offending conduct. Statements recorded during investigation could not be treated as reliable evidence because they were not tested in compliance with Section 138B, and no incriminating documents were recovered to support the charge. On this basis, the penalty order was set aside and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 27 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790614