TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is required to be taken on oath or affirmation. (ii) Whether the appellant was liable to penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and, if so, to what extent.
Issue (i): Whether a statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is required to be taken on oath or affirmation.
Analysis: Section 108 empowers a gazetted customs officer to summon a person and record a statement, and the provision itself contains no requirement that the statement be taken on oath or affirmation. Section 146A deals with appearance by an authorized representative in proceedings under the Act and expressly excludes only cases where attendance is required under Section 108 for examination on oath or affirmation. The two provisions operate in different fields, and Section 146A does not impose an oath requirement on statements under Section 108.
Conclusion: A statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 need not be recorded on oath or affirmation.
Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was liable to penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and, if so, to what extent.
Analysis: The appellant's statement that he received the goods, intended to sell them for profit, and was conducting the business with assistance from his brother was not retracted and was not shown to have been obtained by force, threat, or fraud. The surrounding circumstances, including the absence of any claim to the seized goods by the appellant's father or brother and the explanations given by them, were treated as corroborative of the appellant's own admission. On that basis, the appellant was found to be concerned with the storing and dealing of the contraband goods and therefore liable to penalty. At the same time, his youth and student status were taken into account for reduction of the quantum.
Conclusion: The penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld, but reduced from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 3,000.
Final Conclusion: The liability to penalty was maintained on the basis of the appellant's own un-retracted statement and corroborating circumstances, while the penalty amount was moderated in view of mitigating factors.
Ratio Decidendi: A voluntary and un-retracted statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 may be relied upon without any requirement of oath or affirmation, and corroborating circumstances may sustain penalty under Section 112(b).
TaxTMI 
