https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91032 Reliability of a panchnama and witness evidence is critical where confiscatory penalties depend on proof of recovery. Here, the evidence did not establish that gold biscuits were intercepted from the appellant in the basement parking area or recovered from his person and briefcase, because the panch witnesses and departmental officers gave inconsistent accounts and the investigating officer had not personally seen the alleged movement to the parking lot. The panchnama was therefore treated as unreliable. Once the recovery itself was not proved, the appellant's retracted statements could not be safely relied on, and the penalties under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act could not stand. en-us Fri, 28 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:09:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91032 Reliability of a panchnama and witness evidence is critical where confiscatory penalties depend on proof of recovery. Here, the evidence did not establish that gold biscuits were intercepted from the appellant in the basement parking area or recovered from his person and briefcase, because the panch witnesses and departmental officers gave inconsistent accounts and the investigating officer had not personally seen the alleged movement to the parking lot. The panchnama was therefore treated as unreliable. Once the recovery itself was not proved, the appellant's retracted statements could not be safely relied on, and the penalties under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act could not stand. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 28 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91032