https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783035 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held that statements recorded under section 108 were not legally admissible, as the mandatory procedure under section 138B had not been followed, and the Commissioner had relied solely on such statements. No incriminating material was recovered from the appellant or his premises. The department failed to establish the requisite knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation under section 111. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Dec 2025 08:41:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783035 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held that statements recorded under section 108 were not legally admissible, as the mandatory procedure under section 138B had not been followed, and the Commissioner had relied solely on such statements. No incriminating material was recovered from the appellant or his premises. The department failed to establish the requisite knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation under section 111. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783035