Retracted confession, phone call insufficient to implicate appellant in gold smuggling.

The CESTAT held that the appellant could not be implicated solely based on the retracted confessional statement of the co-accused. The telephonic call between them was insufficient to establish appellant's involvement in gold smuggling. Imposing penalties u/s 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 was incorrect as there was no evidence of appellant dealing with the seized goods or having prior knowledge of their liability for confiscation. Consequently, the penalties imposed on the appellant were set aside and the appeal was allowed. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X