Export obligation removed by notification, customs duty demand invalidated; penalties under s.112 and s.114AA quashed due to inadmissible s.108 statem...
Customs officers must wear and use department-issued body-worn cameras when clearing passenger baggage, with daily secure transfer and 30-day retentio...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10041 to 10060 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant, holding that statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act are not admissible as relevant evidence under section 138B unless the maker is first examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority and the authority, after forming an opinion on admissibility, admits the statement and affords the accused the opportunity of cross-examination. Because the impugned penalty was predicated on such inadmissible statements and the procedural safeguards were not observed, the penalty levied on the appellant (including that attributed to the managing director) could not be sustained and was quashed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant, holding that statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act are not admissible as relevant evidence under section 138B unless the maker is first examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority and the authority, after forming an opinion on admissibility, admits the statement and affords the accused the opportunity of cross-examination. Because the impugned penalty was predicated on such inadmissible statements and the procedural safeguards were not observed, the penalty levied on the appellant (including that attributed to the managing director) could not be sustained and was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
