2026-VIL-323-CESTAT-DEL-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Relevance and admissibility of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – Appellant-CHA was imposed penalties under Sections 112(a)(i) and 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act based on his statements and the statements of third party recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The appellant challenged the penalties on the ground that the statements cannot be relied upon as the procedure under Section 138B of the Customs Act was not followed - Whether the penalties imposed on the appellant solely on the basis of the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act can be sustained – HELD - The statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be considered as relevant evidence unless the procedure prescribed under Section 138B of the Customs Act is followed. Section 138B(1)(b) requires that the person who made the statement must be examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority, and the authority must form an opinion that the statement should be admitted in evidence in the interests of justice. This procedure was not followed in the present case - The provisions of Section 138B(1)(b) of the Customs Act and Section 9D(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act are mandatory provisions. The rationale behind this elaborate procedure is to ensure that statements recorded during investigation are not obtained under coercion or compulsion and to provide the opportunity of cross-examination to the person against whom the statement is used. Since the mandatory procedure was not followed in the present case, the penalties imposed solely on the basis of the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be sustained and set aside – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page