https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434105 Penalty under the Customs Act should not rest solely on retracted statements recorded after prolonged custody unless voluntariness is independently established; absent corroboration, such statements are unsafe for penal action. Denial of cross-examination of panch witnesses can also undermine a disputed recovery where those witnesses are material to the search and seizure process. For government officers, proceedings are barred if the statutory prior written notice and time requirements are not complied with. A co-accused's statement, without independent evidence, is insufficient to sustain penalty, and a combined penalty under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) is vulnerable where the basis of liability is not clearly established. en-us Mon, 13 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Feb 2023 09:10:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434105 Penalty under the Customs Act should not rest solely on retracted statements recorded after prolonged custody unless voluntariness is independently established; absent corroboration, such statements are unsafe for penal action. Denial of cross-examination of panch witnesses can also undermine a disputed recovery where those witnesses are material to the search and seizure process. For government officers, proceedings are barred if the statutory prior written notice and time requirements are not complied with. A co-accused's statement, without independent evidence, is insufficient to sustain penalty, and a combined penalty under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) is vulnerable where the basis of liability is not clearly established. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 13 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434105