<?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 investigation statements u/s108: failure to examine makers and allow cross-examination made them inadmissible; appeals dismissed</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95897</link>
    <description>Statements recorded under s.108 of the Customs Act were held inadmissible because the department did not examine the makers as witnesses, failing the mandatory conditions of s.138B(1)(b); consequently, adjudication and penalty proceedings could not be sustained on such statements, and denial of cross-examination violated the &quot;reasonable opportunity&quot; under s.122A. The contention that absence of s.108 statements bars noticees from objecting was rejected as the statute creates no adverse inference for non-recording; the issue was answered against the revenue. Other framed questions were rendered unnecessary, and the appeals were dismissed. - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2026 08:25:22 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2026 08:25:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=877271" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Customs investigation statements u/s108: failure to examine makers and allow cross-examination made them inadmissible; appeals dismissed</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95897</link>
      <description>Statements recorded under s.108 of the Customs Act were held inadmissible because the department did not examine the makers as witnesses, failing the mandatory conditions of s.138B(1)(b); consequently, adjudication and penalty proceedings could not be sustained on such statements, and denial of cross-examination violated the &quot;reasonable opportunity&quot; under s.122A. The contention that absence of s.108 statements bars noticees from objecting was rejected as the statute creates no adverse inference for non-recording; the issue was answered against the revenue. Other framed questions were rendered unnecessary, and the appeals were dismissed. - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2026 08:25:22 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95897</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>