https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789313 Statements recorded under Section 108, when not retracted or discredited, were treated as substantive evidence of foreign origin and unauthorised import, sustaining confiscation of the seized peas under Section 111(b) and the connected vehicles under Section 115(2); redemption on fine did not alter that result. However, penalty under Section 112(b) was not justified because the order did not record a clear finding of mens rea against the appellant. The confiscation and redemption-related reliefs were maintained, but the personal penalty was deleted. en-us Tue, 12 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Apr 2026 07:48:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789313 Statements recorded under Section 108, when not retracted or discredited, were treated as substantive evidence of foreign origin and unauthorised import, sustaining confiscation of the seized peas under Section 111(b) and the connected vehicles under Section 115(2); redemption on fine did not alter that result. However, penalty under Section 112(b) was not justified because the order did not record a clear finding of mens rea against the appellant. The confiscation and redemption-related reliefs were maintained, but the personal penalty was deleted. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 12 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789313