Valuation of seized goods upheld when respondent fails to specifically rebut market-based valuation; appeal dismissed for lack of substantial legal question.

Valuation of seized foreign cigarettes fixed in the show cause notice based on a market survey stands unless the appellant specifically rebuts it; outcome: valuation upheld. Unretracted statements recorded under the statutory admissibility provision carry evidentiary weight and, absent retraction or demonstrated prejudice from denial of cross-examination, do not vitiate seizure, confiscation or penalty; outcome: reliance on those statements upheld. Appeals premised solely on concurrent factual findings without a substantial question of law are not maintainable under the statutory appeal provision; outcome: appeal dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the valuation of seized foreign-origin cigarettes (price fixed at Rs.14 per stick) is sustainable in law in the absence of documentary material evidencing that valuation; (ii) Whether the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and the alleged denial of opportunity for cross-examination vitiate the confiscation and penalty orders; (iii) Whether the appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act is maintainable in the absence of a question of law.

Issue (i): Whether the valuation of the seized goods at Rs.14 per cigarette stick is sustainable in law.

Analysis: The show cause notice specified the market value and indicated that the valuation was based on a market survey. Once valuation is asserted in the show cause notice, the onus lies on the appellant to demonstrate that the evaluation is incorrect or improper. The authorities below considered the valuation material and addressed the appellant's contentions; the appellate and tribunals affirmed those findings on the available record.

Conclusion: The valuation set by the authorities is sustainable in law absent a specific and substantiated demonstration by the appellant that the valuation was incorrect; the appellant failed to discharge that burden.

Issue (ii): Whether statements recorded under Section 108 and the alleged denial of cross-examination invalidate the orders of seizure, confiscation and penalty.

Analysis: The statements recorded under Section 108 were not retracted and therefore operate under the statutory fiction as admissible and binding material. The authorities examined the Panchanama, seizure memo and multiple statements and applied Section 123 regarding burden of proof. Precedents recognise that the right to cross-examination is not absolute and non-consequential failure to allow cross-examination does not automatically vitiate orders where no prejudice is shown and the statements remain unchallenged.

Conclusion: The reliance on statements under Section 108 and the approach to cross-examination do not vitiate the confiscation or penalty orders; the appellant has not shown prejudice or retraction to displace the statutory effect of those statements.

Issue (iii): Whether the appeal under Section 130 is maintainable absent any question of law.

Analysis: Section 130 permits appeals on questions of law. The determination of valuation, admissibility of Section 108 statements, and findings on confiscation and penalty were addressed by the authorities with factual and legal evaluation; the Court concluded that no substantial question of law arises from the concurrent findings and legal reasoning applied by the authorities below.

Conclusion: The appeal under Section 130 is not maintainable because it does not raise any substantial question of law; consequently the appeal is without merit.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent factual and legal findings of valuation, seizure, confiscation and penalty were upheld; the appellant failed to discharge the burden to show error in valuation or prejudice from procedural aspects, and therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where valuation of seized goods is stated in the show cause notice based on a market survey, the burden lies on the appellant to specifically rebut that valuation; un-retracted statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act carry statutory weight and the right to cross-examination is not absolute, so absence of cross-examination does not vitiate orders unless prejudice or retraction is shown.

---