Confiscation and duty recovery quashed where licensing records show export obligation discharged; customs lacks jurisdiction absent licence annulment ...
FOB is Incoterm reflecting exporter's transaction value; declared shipping bill value not automatically confiscable under s.113(i), s.125, ss.114(i) a...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 28.05.2021 of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal held that a statement recorded under s.108, Customs Act, was inadmissible where the procedure under s.138B was not complied with; consequently that statement could not serve as the sole basis for rejecting declared assessable value and for re-determination under r.5, 2007 Valuation Rules. Applying principles analogous to s.14 and s.9D, Central Excise Act, the Tribunal confirmed that admissibility requires prior examination of the maker as witness and an adjudicative determination on relevance followed by an opportunity for cross-examination. The Commissioner (Appeals) order based solely on the inadmissible statement was therefore unsustainable.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 28.05.2021 of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal held that a statement recorded under s.108, Customs Act, was inadmissible where the procedure under s.138B was not complied with; consequently that statement could not serve as the sole basis for rejecting declared assessable value and for re-determination under r.5, 2007 Valuation Rules. Applying principles analogous to s.14 and s.9D, Central Excise Act, the Tribunal confirmed that admissibility requires prior examination of the maker as witness and an adjudicative determination on relevance followed by an opportunity for cross-examination. The Commissioner (Appeals) order based solely on the inadmissible statement was therefore unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
