https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423219 Review was refused in customs adjudication because the challenged findings were supported by independent corroborative material, including mobile call data and surrounding circumstances, and were not based solely on one co-accused's confessional statement. The objection that the adjudicating officer lacked jurisdiction was rejected because the officer was validly vested with authority by notification and case assignment, and any preamble error was treated as typographical. The complaint about absence of a Section 65B certificate was also rejected, as strict criminal evidence rules do not apply in the same manner to customs adjudication and the issue was outside the proper scope of review. en-us Wed, 18 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Jun 2022 08:41:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423219 Review was refused in customs adjudication because the challenged findings were supported by independent corroborative material, including mobile call data and surrounding circumstances, and were not based solely on one co-accused's confessional statement. The objection that the adjudicating officer lacked jurisdiction was rejected because the officer was validly vested with authority by notification and case assignment, and any preamble error was treated as typographical. The complaint about absence of a Section 65B certificate was also rejected, as strict criminal evidence rules do not apply in the same manner to customs adjudication and the issue was outside the proper scope of review. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 18 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423219