https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784531 Statements recorded under s.108 of the Customs Act were held inadmissible because the mandatory procedure under s.138B-examination of the maker before the adjudicating authority, a reasoned finding on admissibility, and opportunity of cross-examination-was not followed; consequently, such statements could not be used to establish diversion or manipulation. Confiscation under s.113(d), (g) and (i) was held unsustainable since the goods had already been exported pursuant to Let Export Orders and s.113 applies to attempted improper export; therefore, no confiscation lay. Penalties under s.114(iii) and s.114AA were also set aside because s.114(iii) depends on an improper export attempt and s.114AA was founded on inadmissible s.108 statements. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order was quashed. en-us Tue, 06 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jan 2026 08:03:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784531 Statements recorded under s.108 of the Customs Act were held inadmissible because the mandatory procedure under s.138B-examination of the maker before the adjudicating authority, a reasoned finding on admissibility, and opportunity of cross-examination-was not followed; consequently, such statements could not be used to establish diversion or manipulation. Confiscation under s.113(d), (g) and (i) was held unsustainable since the goods had already been exported pursuant to Let Export Orders and s.113 applies to attempted improper export; therefore, no confiscation lay. Penalties under s.114(iii) and s.114AA were also set aside because s.114(iii) depends on an improper export attempt and s.114AA was founded on inadmissible s.108 statements. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order was quashed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 06 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784531