<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Customs Act Case: Statements Not Sole Evidence; Multiple Direct Proofs Justify Duty Liability, Petition Dismissed.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=73500</link>
    <description>Relevancy of statements u/s 138B of Customs Act - Section 138B per se does not provide for any cross examination, as the provision deals with relevancy of statements in the facts and circumstances of the case. - On a perusal of the impugned order-in-original which runs into 118 pages and on a holistic reading of the order, it cannot be said that the order is passed only on the statements of three witnesses of which cross-examination has not been granted, but there were various other direct evidences against the petitioner, for the duty liability to be fastened on the petitioner. - Petition dismissed - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 09 Dec 2023 11:52:43 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Dec 2023 11:52:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=734599" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Customs Act Case: Statements Not Sole Evidence; Multiple Direct Proofs Justify Duty Liability, Petition Dismissed.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=73500</link>
      <description>Relevancy of statements u/s 138B of Customs Act - Section 138B per se does not provide for any cross examination, as the provision deals with relevancy of statements in the facts and circumstances of the case. - On a perusal of the impugned order-in-original which runs into 118 pages and on a holistic reading of the order, it cannot be said that the order is passed only on the statements of three witnesses of which cross-examination has not been granted, but there were various other direct evidences against the petitioner, for the duty liability to be fastened on the petitioner. - Petition dismissed - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 09 Dec 2023 11:52:43 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=73500</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>