https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791912 Penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires proof that the person was concerned with or dealt with goods liable to confiscation and had knowledge or belief of their confiscable character. A section 108 statement could not be relied on because the procedure under section 138B was not followed, and third-party computer printouts and private records seized from another premises were unsupported by independent corroboration. On that evidentiary basis, the statutory ingredients of section 112(b) were not established, and the penalty was set aside. en-us Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 May 2026 08:31:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791912 Penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires proof that the person was concerned with or dealt with goods liable to confiscation and had knowledge or belief of their confiscable character. A section 108 statement could not be relied on because the procedure under section 138B was not followed, and third-party computer printouts and private records seized from another premises were unsupported by independent corroboration. On that evidentiary basis, the statutory ingredients of section 112(b) were not established, and the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791912