Eligibility for exemption depends on strict construction of the product description; reapers without binder are ineligible, but confiscation and penal...
Customs jurisdiction defined for Principal Commissioner, Vishakhapatnam, covering specified ports, districts and India's adjacent EEZ; effective on pu...
Statements recorded under s.108 of the Customs Act were held inadmissible because the department did not examine the makers as witnesses, failing the mandatory conditions of s.138B(1)(b); consequently, adjudication and penalty proceedings could not be sustained on such statements, and denial of cross-examination violated the "reasonable opportunity" under s.122A. The contention that absence of s.108 statements bars noticees from objecting was rejected as the statute creates no adverse inference for non-recording; the issue was answered against the revenue. Other framed questions were rendered unnecessary, and the appeals were dismissed. - HC
Statements recorded under s.108 of the Customs Act were held inadmissible because the department did not examine the makers as witnesses, failing the mandatory conditions of s.138B(1)(b); consequently, adjudication and penalty proceedings could not be sustained on such statements, and denial of cross-examination violated the "reasonable opportunity" under s.122A. The contention that absence of s.108 statements bars noticees from objecting was rejected as the statute creates no adverse inference for non-recording; the issue was answered against the revenue. Other framed questions were rendered unnecessary, and the appeals were dismissed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.