https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788182 Section 108 statements under the Customs Act, 1962 were treated as admissible substantive evidence in customs proceedings when they were consistent and corroborated by collateral material, including another noticee's statement and forensic extraction from a mobile phone. On that basis, the High Court upheld the finding that the petitioner was involved in conduct rendering the goods liable to confiscation and sustained the penalty and related customs consequences. The plea for parity with relief granted to the carrier was rejected because Article 14 cannot be used to claim equal treatment with a person who has violated the law. The challenge failed for want of merit. en-us Thu, 12 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Mar 2026 08:20:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788182 Section 108 statements under the Customs Act, 1962 were treated as admissible substantive evidence in customs proceedings when they were consistent and corroborated by collateral material, including another noticee's statement and forensic extraction from a mobile phone. On that basis, the High Court upheld the finding that the petitioner was involved in conduct rendering the goods liable to confiscation and sustained the penalty and related customs consequences. The plea for parity with relief granted to the carrier was rejected because Article 14 cannot be used to claim equal treatment with a person who has violated the law. The challenge failed for want of merit. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 12 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788182