<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Customs duty on imported goods using purchased import licences fails; Section 108 statements rejected for noncompliance with Section 138B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95451</link>
    <description>Duty liability could not be fastened on the appellant merely as a purchaser of import licences when the licences were issued by the competent authority and were not forged, and there was a recorded finding that the appellant was not party to any fraud by the seller; consequently, the demand against the appellant was unsustainable. Statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act were not admissible/reliable in the absence of compliance with section 138B, which requires examination of the maker as a witness, a reasoned finding on admissibility, and an opportunity of cross-examination; hence the statements could not support the demand. The impugned adjudication order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 27 Dec 2025 08:06:01 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Dec 2025 08:06:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=874304" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Customs duty on imported goods using purchased import licences fails; Section 108 statements rejected for noncompliance with Section 138B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95451</link>
      <description>Duty liability could not be fastened on the appellant merely as a purchaser of import licences when the licences were issued by the competent authority and were not forged, and there was a recorded finding that the appellant was not party to any fraud by the seller; consequently, the demand against the appellant was unsustainable. Statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act were not admissible/reliable in the absence of compliance with section 138B, which requires examination of the maker as a witness, a reasoned finding on admissibility, and an opportunity of cross-examination; hence the statements could not support the demand. The impugned adjudication order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 27 Dec 2025 08:06:01 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95451</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>