Evidences indicate appellant was aware of smuggling activities involving diversion of smuggled...

Evidences indicate appellant was aware of smuggling activities involving diversion of smuggled cigarettes concealed in transit container, providing transportation and storage facilities. Appellant abetted illegal smuggling activities, conniving with smuggling racket. Adjudicating authority rightly imposed penalty on appellant u/s 112(b) of Customs Act for abetment. However, co-appellant played no role in clearance or smuggling of cigarettes through containers. Evidence lacks co-appellant's involvement in alleged smuggling. Penalty imposed on co-appellant u/s 112(b) unsustainable, set aside. Tribunal upholds penalty on appellant, sets aside penalty on co-appellant. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X