https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448078 The Delhi HC dismissed a writ petition challenging a customs penalty restoration order. The petitioner had given incriminating statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act admitting to recovery of memory cards from his possession and recognizing an accomplice. The court held that Section 108 statements constitute substantive evidence, were consistent, and corroborated by panchnamas and witness testimony. The HC ruled it cannot substitute its own conclusions for administrative decisions absent patent illegality or procedural violations, finding no merit in the challenge to the evidence-based revision order. en-us Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Sep 2024 13:25:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448078 The Delhi HC dismissed a writ petition challenging a customs penalty restoration order. The petitioner had given incriminating statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act admitting to recovery of memory cards from his possession and recognizing an accomplice. The court held that Section 108 statements constitute substantive evidence, were consistent, and corroborated by panchnamas and witness testimony. The HC ruled it cannot substitute its own conclusions for administrative decisions absent patent illegality or procedural violations, finding no merit in the challenge to the evidence-based revision order. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448078