Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty under section 112A of the Customs Act was sustainable when the appellant had not been examined during investigation and the action rested on statements of other persons without supporting material particulars.
Analysis: The penalty was founded on statements recorded from the importer and another person under section 108 of the Customs Act, while no statement of the appellant was recorded and no incriminating record or document was seized from the appellant. The decision also treated such uncorroborated material as insufficient, relying on the principle that a statement of an accomplice or co-accused is not worthy of credit unless supported by material particulars. On that basis, the imposition of penalty was held to have been made without fair opportunity at the investigation stage.
Conclusion: The penalty under section 112A was unsustainable and was set aside, with consequential relief.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the confirmed penalty against the appellant was annulled.
Ratio Decidendi: A penalty under the Customs Act cannot be sustained solely on uncorroborated third-party statements when the person proceeded against was not examined during investigation and no independent incriminating material is brought on record.