Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
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.