https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792483 Penalties under Section 112(a) and Section 112(b) of the Customs Act require cogent evidence showing an act or omission rendering goods liable to confiscation, or conscious dealing with such goods with knowledge or reason to believe they were liable to confiscation. Untested witness statements, when not subjected to cross-examination under Section 138B, and an unsubstantiated alleged recovery from a third party's premises were held insufficient. No reliable seizure record or independent material established the appellant's involvement in smuggling, concealment, removal, or dealing with confiscable goods. Mere acquaintance or suspicion could not support penal liability, and the penalties were set aside for want of admissible corroboration. en-us Mon, 25 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 May 2026 08:59:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792483 Penalties under Section 112(a) and Section 112(b) of the Customs Act require cogent evidence showing an act or omission rendering goods liable to confiscation, or conscious dealing with such goods with knowledge or reason to believe they were liable to confiscation. Untested witness statements, when not subjected to cross-examination under Section 138B, and an unsubstantiated alleged recovery from a third party's premises were held insufficient. No reliable seizure record or independent material established the appellant's involvement in smuggling, concealment, removal, or dealing with confiscable goods. Mere acquaintance or suspicion could not support penal liability, and the penalties were set aside for want of admissible corroboration. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 25 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792483