<?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>Cross-Examination Requests Denied in Customs Act Case as Appellants Failed to Show Prejudice or Coercion</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86313</link>
    <description>The AT dismissed the appeals challenging denial of cross-examination requests for officers who recorded statements under the Customs Act and FERA. The tribunal determined that appellants failed to demonstrate how prejudice was caused by denial of cross-examination or establish reasonable grounds that coercion occurred during statement recording. The AT noted it was unlikely departmental officers would admit to coercive tactics during cross-examination. The tribunal observed that appellants had not examined the merits of the 61 relied-upon documents furnished per the Special Director&#039;s directions, instead raising cross-examination issues without demonstrating necessity. The tribunal found support in the Supreme Court&#039;s decision in State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and declined to intervene with the interlocutory orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2025 08:41:19 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2025 08:41:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=804673" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Cross-Examination Requests Denied in Customs Act Case as Appellants Failed to Show Prejudice or Coercion</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86313</link>
      <description>The AT dismissed the appeals challenging denial of cross-examination requests for officers who recorded statements under the Customs Act and FERA. The tribunal determined that appellants failed to demonstrate how prejudice was caused by denial of cross-examination or establish reasonable grounds that coercion occurred during statement recording. The AT noted it was unlikely departmental officers would admit to coercive tactics during cross-examination. The tribunal observed that appellants had not examined the merits of the 61 relied-upon documents furnished per the Special Director&#039;s directions, instead raising cross-examination issues without demonstrating necessity. The tribunal found support in the Supreme Court&#039;s decision in State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and declined to intervene with the interlocutory orders.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2025 08:41:19 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86313</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>