https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801240 Penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act require admissible evidence of a person's involvement with confiscation-liable goods and proof that the person knew or had reason to believe the goods were liable to confiscation. Third-party statements cannot support liability unless the examination-in-chief requirement under Section 138B is met. An allegation that a person was an intended recipient of seized gold, without independent evidence of receipt, possession, control, transport, concealment, financing, or other dealing, does not establish the required knowledge. The penalties were therefore set aside. en-us Thu, 15 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Oct 2026 05:20:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801240 Penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act require admissible evidence of a person's involvement with confiscation-liable goods and proof that the person knew or had reason to believe the goods were liable to confiscation. Third-party statements cannot support liability unless the examination-in-chief requirement under Section 138B is met. An allegation that a person was an intended recipient of seized gold, without independent evidence of receipt, possession, control, transport, concealment, financing, or other dealing, does not establish the required knowledge. The penalties were therefore set aside. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 15 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801240