<?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>Section 138B safeguards bar reliance on untested third-party statements, while customs penalties require proven knowledge of confiscability.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=105106</link>
    <description>Section 138B safeguards govern the use of statements recorded under customs law in adjudication. Third-party statements cannot be relied upon against a noticee where their makers were not examined in chief, as the statutory conditions for their admission have not been met. Penalty for dealing with goods liable to confiscation also requires independent evidence that the person consciously dealt with the goods and knew, or had reason to believe, that they were liable to confiscation. Mere allegations that a person was an intended recipient of seized gold do not establish the required knowledge; penalties imposed without such proof are unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 05:20:35 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 05:20:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=930481" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Section 138B safeguards bar reliance on untested third-party statements, while customs penalties require proven knowledge of confiscability.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=105106</link>
      <description>Section 138B safeguards govern the use of statements recorded under customs law in adjudication. Third-party statements cannot be relied upon against a noticee where their makers were not examined in chief, as the statutory conditions for their admission have not been met. Penalty for dealing with goods liable to confiscation also requires independent evidence that the person consciously dealt with the goods and knew, or had reason to believe, that they were liable to confiscation. Mere allegations that a person was an intended recipient of seized gold do not establish the required knowledge; penalties imposed without such proof are unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 05:20:35 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=105106</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>