<?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>Admissibility of Investigative Statements invalidated reliance on coerced emails and valuation redetermination, resulting in set aside of penalties and orders</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97895</link>
    <description>Statements recorded under section 108 without the mandatory procedure in section 138B(1)(b) were treated as inadmissible where coercion was alleged and medical evidence supported assault; therefore those statements could not underpin rejection of declared transaction value under Rule 12 or re-determination under Rule 9 of the CVR, 2007. Emails and attached invoices whose provenance was not satisfactorily established while the appellant was in custody were also excluded. Consequently, treatment of the appellant as beneficial owner and consequent demands, penalties and confiscation founded on the unsupported valuation and inadmissible evidence were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2026 08:35:17 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2026 08:35:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=891523" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Admissibility of Investigative Statements invalidated reliance on coerced emails and valuation redetermination, resulting in set aside of penalties and orders</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97895</link>
      <description>Statements recorded under section 108 without the mandatory procedure in section 138B(1)(b) were treated as inadmissible where coercion was alleged and medical evidence supported assault; therefore those statements could not underpin rejection of declared transaction value under Rule 12 or re-determination under Rule 9 of the CVR, 2007. Emails and attached invoices whose provenance was not satisfactorily established while the appellant was in custody were also excluded. Consequently, treatment of the appellant as beneficial owner and consequent demands, penalties and confiscation founded on the unsupported valuation and inadmissible evidence were set aside.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2026 08:35:17 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97895</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>