Imported menthol-scented sweet supari classification dispute: seizure quashed, release for home consumption subject to duty bond; bank guarantee refus...
CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Statements recorded during inquiry under the Customs Act are admissible for proving their truth only if the deponent is examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority and the authority forms an opinion to admit them, followed by opportunity for cross examination; this mandatory procedure in analogous provisions for customs and central excise neutralises coercion risk. The impugned penalty rested solely on inquiry statements recorded without following that procedure, so such statements could not sustain a penalty for abetment under the customs penalty provision. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellants was quashed and the appeals allowed.
Statements recorded during inquiry under the Customs Act are admissible for proving their truth only if the deponent is examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority and the authority forms an opinion to admit them, followed by opportunity for cross examination; this mandatory procedure in analogous provisions for customs and central excise neutralises coercion risk. The impugned penalty rested solely on inquiry statements recorded without following that procedure, so such statements could not sustain a penalty for abetment under the customs penalty provision. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellants was quashed and the appeals allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.