https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772665 Penalty under section 112A of the Customs Act could not be sustained where the appellant was not examined during investigation, no statement was recorded from the appellant, and no incriminating document or record was seized from it. The penalty was based only on statements recorded from the importer and another person under section 108, but those statements were uncorroborated by independent material particulars. Applying the principle that an accomplice or co-accused statement is not reliable without supporting evidence, the CESTAT held that the penalty was imposed without fair investigative basis. The penalty was therefore set aside with consequential relief. en-us Tue, 10 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Jun 2025 07:21:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772665 Penalty under section 112A of the Customs Act could not be sustained where the appellant was not examined during investigation, no statement was recorded from the appellant, and no incriminating document or record was seized from it. The penalty was based only on statements recorded from the importer and another person under section 108, but those statements were uncorroborated by independent material particulars. Applying the principle that an accomplice or co-accused statement is not reliable without supporting evidence, the CESTAT held that the penalty was imposed without fair investigative basis. The penalty was therefore set aside with consequential relief. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 10 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772665