Topic
Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, empowers customs officers to summon and examine persons regarding suspected violations, with statements made under it being critical evidence in enforcement proceedings.
Bombay High Court rules that failure to transfer property, even after accepting payment, does not constitute abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court emphasized the lack of intent to drive the deceased to suicide, distinguishing civil disputes from criminal liability.
CESTAT Allahabad rules that a mere hearsay admission under Section 108 of the Customs Act, without corroborative evidence like foreign markings, cannot establish smuggling under Section 123. The ruling underscores the need for tangible proof beyond oral statements to confiscate goods, impacting customs enforcement and importers' rights.
CESTAT Hyderabad quashed a differential duty demand and penalties, ruling that electronic evidence like emails and statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act must strictly adhere to statutory compliance, including the right to cross-examination. The decision underscores that procedural lapses in evidence collection vitiate the validity of duty demands, impacting importers and customs authorities alike.
Supreme Court holds that conviction under Section 135 Customs Act cannot rest solely on Section 108 statements; independent corroboration essential for validity.
The Customs Appellate Tribunal holds that penalty under Section 112 cannot be imposed solely on statements recorded under Section 108 without complying with mandatory admissibility procedures under Section 138B.
Bombay High Court holds that seven years of unexplained absence, supported by police certification and public notices, triggers presumption of death under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act.