<?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>2001 (2) TMI 519 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96059</link>
    <description>Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act were treated as substantive evidence capable of supporting penal action, and statements of co-noticees implicating the applicants could also be used against them. On that settled legal position, independent corroboration was not required to sustain reliance on those statements. The reference applications were therefore rejected because the proposed question was answered against the applicants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:36:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133118" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 519 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96059</link>
      <description>Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act were treated as substantive evidence capable of supporting penal action, and statements of co-noticees implicating the applicants could also be used against them. On that settled legal position, independent corroboration was not required to sustain reliance on those statements. The reference applications were therefore rejected because the proposed question was answered against the applicants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96059</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>