https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420419 Customs penalty proceedings cannot rest on inconsistent, uncorroborated and retracted Section 108 statements when no independent evidence or effective cross-examination supports the allegations. The article states that a co-noticee's inculpatory statement is not substantive proof against others without corroboration, so penalties under the Customs Act were unsustainable on that basis. It also explains that Section 112(a) and Section 112(b) create distinct liability and cannot be treated as a single composite ground; where alleged earlier smuggling of gold is unsupported by seizure, recovery or reliable proof of possession, transport or knowing involvement, the statutory ingredients for penalty are not established. en-us Tue, 29 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Apr 2022 08:34:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420419 Customs penalty proceedings cannot rest on inconsistent, uncorroborated and retracted Section 108 statements when no independent evidence or effective cross-examination supports the allegations. The article states that a co-noticee's inculpatory statement is not substantive proof against others without corroboration, so penalties under the Customs Act were unsustainable on that basis. It also explains that Section 112(a) and Section 112(b) create distinct liability and cannot be treated as a single composite ground; where alleged earlier smuggling of gold is unsupported by seizure, recovery or reliable proof of possession, transport or knowing involvement, the statutory ingredients for penalty are not established. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 29 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420419