https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768205 A statement recorded during customs investigation cannot be treated as admissible evidence unless the mandatory procedure under section 138B of the Customs Act is followed, and its use does not depend on the noticee first seeking cross-examination. Once that statement is excluded, the Revenue must still prove foreign origin and smuggling with independent reliable material; a retracted hearsay statement without corroboration does not discharge the burden under section 123. On that basis, confiscation of the seized gold under section 111 was not sustainable, and penalty under section 112(b) also failed because it depended on proof of smuggling and culpable involvement. en-us Wed, 02 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Apr 2025 07:50:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768205 A statement recorded during customs investigation cannot be treated as admissible evidence unless the mandatory procedure under section 138B of the Customs Act is followed, and its use does not depend on the noticee first seeking cross-examination. Once that statement is excluded, the Revenue must still prove foreign origin and smuggling with independent reliable material; a retracted hearsay statement without corroboration does not discharge the burden under section 123. On that basis, confiscation of the seized gold under section 111 was not sustainable, and penalty under section 112(b) also failed because it depended on proof of smuggling and culpable involvement. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 02 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768205