<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1997 (5) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87770</link>
    <description>A retracted statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act can still support a penalty where it is shown to be voluntary, detailed and materially corroborated by other evidence, including the statement of a co-accused and surrounding circumstances. Retraction alone does not erase evidentiary value, and customs adjudication is decided on a preponderance of probabilities rather than criminal trial standards. On that basis, the penalty was upheld and the appeal rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:03:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124836" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (5) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87770</link>
      <description>A retracted statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act can still support a penalty where it is shown to be voluntary, detailed and materially corroborated by other evidence, including the statement of a co-accused and surrounding circumstances. Retraction alone does not erase evidentiary value, and customs adjudication is decided on a preponderance of probabilities rather than criminal trial standards. On that basis, the penalty was upheld and the appeal rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87770</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>