https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94433 CESTAT allowed the appeal of the anonymized importer and set aside the Commissioner's order dated 13.04.2007. It held that, since the REP licences in question were duly issued by the competent licensing authority and were not forged licences, customs duty liability could not be fastened on the appellant as a bona fide transferee, even if the original licences had been procured on the basis of fraudulent export or bank documents. CESTAT further held that the inculpatory statements recorded under s.108 of the Customs Act were inadmissible, as the mandatory procedure under s.138B, including examination of the maker as a witness and affording an opportunity for cross-examination, had not been followed. Consequently, the demand of duty, confiscation, and penalties were unsustainable. en-us Mon, 24 Nov 2025 08:57:51 +0530 Mon, 24 Nov 2025 08:57:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94433 CESTAT allowed the appeal of the anonymized importer and set aside the Commissioner's order dated 13.04.2007. It held that, since the REP licences in question were duly issued by the competent licensing authority and were not forged licences, customs duty liability could not be fastened on the appellant as a bona fide transferee, even if the original licences had been procured on the basis of fraudulent export or bank documents. CESTAT further held that the inculpatory statements recorded under s.108 of the Customs Act were inadmissible, as the mandatory procedure under s.138B, including examination of the maker as a witness and affording an opportunity for cross-examination, had not been followed. Consequently, the demand of duty, confiscation, and penalties were unsustainable. Highlights Customs Mon, 24 Nov 2025 08:57:51 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94433