https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83434 Customs case involving alleged undervaluation of imported goods and demand of illegal gratification by a Customs officer. The Tribunal found the statements of co-accused relied upon by the adjudicating authority were not reliable evidence against the appellant as cross-examination was denied. No specific allegation proved that the appellant's act rendered the goods liable for confiscation. Statements did not implicate appellant in receiving money. Penalties u/ss 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act were set aside as there was no sustainable ground to impose them on the appellant. The order imposing penalties could not be upheld due to lack of evidence. en-us Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:48:51 +0530 Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:48:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83434 Customs case involving alleged undervaluation of imported goods and demand of illegal gratification by a Customs officer. The Tribunal found the statements of co-accused relied upon by the adjudicating authority were not reliable evidence against the appellant as cross-examination was denied. No specific allegation proved that the appellant's act rendered the goods liable for confiscation. Statements did not implicate appellant in receiving money. Penalties u/ss 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act were set aside as there was no sustainable ground to impose them on the appellant. The order imposing penalties could not be upheld due to lack of evidence. Highlights Customs Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:48:51 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83434