https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783237 CESTAT set aside penalties imposed under ss. 112(b)(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act on the appellant. The Tribunal held that statements recorded under s. 108 could not be relied upon as evidence, as the mandatory procedure under s. 138B, including examination before the adjudicating authority and opportunity for cross-examination, was not followed. Consequently, the appellant could not be treated as owner of the 12 gold bars, rendering inapplicable the burden-shifting under s. 123 and vitiating the confiscation under s. 111 of both gold and seized currency. The confiscation of gold jewellery/ornaments was also held unsustainable, as there was no proof of smuggled origin or illicit manufacture and non-production of e-way bills could not justify adverse findings. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Dec 2025 17:14:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783237 CESTAT set aside penalties imposed under ss. 112(b)(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act on the appellant. The Tribunal held that statements recorded under s. 108 could not be relied upon as evidence, as the mandatory procedure under s. 138B, including examination before the adjudicating authority and opportunity for cross-examination, was not followed. Consequently, the appellant could not be treated as owner of the 12 gold bars, rendering inapplicable the burden-shifting under s. 123 and vitiating the confiscation under s. 111 of both gold and seized currency. The confiscation of gold jewellery/ornaments was also held unsustainable, as there was no proof of smuggled origin or illicit manufacture and non-production of e-way bills could not justify adverse findings. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783237