https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74282 A composite penalty under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act was treated as impermissible because the adjudicating authority had to specify the quantum attributable to each statute separately. A later corrigendum substituting a paragraph in the original order was regarded as an invalid review once the authority had become functus officio, except for correction of clerical or apparent errors. On the evidence, the charge was not established because the only incriminating statement had been retracted, there was no independent corroboration, and penal proceedings required proof at least on a preponderance of probabilities, with benefit of doubt going to the appellant. en-us Tue, 01 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jun 2011 17:34:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74282 A composite penalty under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act was treated as impermissible because the adjudicating authority had to specify the quantum attributable to each statute separately. A later corrigendum substituting a paragraph in the original order was regarded as an invalid review once the authority had become functus officio, except for correction of clerical or apparent errors. On the evidence, the charge was not established because the only incriminating statement had been retracted, there was no independent corroboration, and penal proceedings required proof at least on a preponderance of probabilities, with benefit of doubt going to the appellant. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 01 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74282