https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259892 Penalty under the Customs Act was sustained where the adjudicating authority and Tribunal relied on a retracted Section 108 statement together with seizure material, contemporaneous panchnama, witness statements, and the absence of proof of lawful purchase or legitimate source. The retraction was found unsubstantiated, and the evidentiary value of the statement was assessed on the totality of circumstances rather than being nullified by retraction alone. On that basis, penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld. en-us Mon, 20 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Oct 2015 11:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259892 Penalty under the Customs Act was sustained where the adjudicating authority and Tribunal relied on a retracted Section 108 statement together with seizure material, contemporaneous panchnama, witness statements, and the absence of proof of lawful purchase or legitimate source. The retraction was found unsubstantiated, and the evidentiary value of the statement was assessed on the totality of circumstances rather than being nullified by retraction alone. On that basis, penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 20 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259892