https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786528 Penalty under section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires proof of abetment with knowledge or intentional aiding; mere facilitation is insufficient, and on the facts recorded no such knowledge or complicity was established, so the penalty could not be sustained. Statements recorded under section 108 cannot be relied on in adjudication unless the mandatory procedure in section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962, read with section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is followed by examining the maker and deciding admissibility before use, with cross-examination if sought; straight reliance on such statements was impermissible. en-us Thu, 12 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Feb 2026 08:29:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786528 Penalty under section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires proof of abetment with knowledge or intentional aiding; mere facilitation is insufficient, and on the facts recorded no such knowledge or complicity was established, so the penalty could not be sustained. Statements recorded under section 108 cannot be relied on in adjudication unless the mandatory procedure in section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962, read with section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is followed by examining the maker and deciding admissibility before use, with cross-examination if sought; straight reliance on such statements was impermissible. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 12 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786528