https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249694 Retraction of co-accused statements under the Customs Act did not, by itself, prevent reliance on those statements for penalty where corroborative material existed. The HC treated statements recorded under Section 108 as substantive evidence and held that they could be used with seizure and other supporting material unless coercion, force, or duress was satisfactorily proved. On the record, the alleged ill-treatment was not established, and the authorities had assessed the statements together with corroboration on a preponderance of probabilities. The penalty finding was therefore upheld. en-us Thu, 03 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Sep 2017 13:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249694 Retraction of co-accused statements under the Customs Act did not, by itself, prevent reliance on those statements for penalty where corroborative material existed. The HC treated statements recorded under Section 108 as substantive evidence and held that they could be used with seizure and other supporting material unless coercion, force, or duress was satisfactorily proved. On the record, the alleged ill-treatment was not established, and the authorities had assessed the statements together with corroboration on a preponderance of probabilities. The penalty finding was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 03 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249694