https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84109 A doubtful confession could not safely sustain penal liability where it was recorded late at night, promptly retracted before the Magistrate, and the request to cross-examine the seizure witness was rejected without reasons; the penalty was therefore set aside. However, confiscation of the unclaimed offending goods was upheld because no sufficient basis was shown to disturb that order, and the goods had not been claimed by the appellant. The commentary thus distinguishes between evidentiary infirmity affecting penalty and independent confiscation of unclaimed goods. en-us Tue, 21 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:31:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84109 A doubtful confession could not safely sustain penal liability where it was recorded late at night, promptly retracted before the Magistrate, and the request to cross-examine the seizure witness was rejected without reasons; the penalty was therefore set aside. However, confiscation of the unclaimed offending goods was upheld because no sufficient basis was shown to disturb that order, and the goods had not been claimed by the appellant. The commentary thus distinguishes between evidentiary infirmity affecting penalty and independent confiscation of unclaimed goods. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 21 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84109