https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784530 Statements recorded under s.108 of the Customs Act were held inadmissible because the adjudicating authority did not comply with s.138B requirements of examining the maker as a witness, forming an opinion on admissibility, and affording cross-examination; consequently, the alleged fraudulent diversion to a non-notified destination for Focus Market Scheme benefits was not proved. Confiscation under s.113(d),(g),(i) was set aside because the goods had already been exported pursuant to Let Export Orders before initiation of investigation, so the provision governing attempted improper export was inapplicable. Penalties under s.114(iii) were quashed as contingent on confiscability/attempt, and penalties under s.114AA were quashed as based on inadmissible s.108 statements. The impugned appellate order was set aside and the appeal allowed. 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=784530 Statements recorded under s.108 of the Customs Act were held inadmissible because the adjudicating authority did not comply with s.138B requirements of examining the maker as a witness, forming an opinion on admissibility, and affording cross-examination; consequently, the alleged fraudulent diversion to a non-notified destination for Focus Market Scheme benefits was not proved. Confiscation under s.113(d),(g),(i) was set aside because the goods had already been exported pursuant to Let Export Orders before initiation of investigation, so the provision governing attempted improper export was inapplicable. Penalties under s.114(iii) were quashed as contingent on confiscability/attempt, and penalties under s.114AA were quashed as based on inadmissible s.108 statements. The impugned appellate order was set aside and the appeal allowed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 06 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784530