Penalty under sections 112(a) and 114AA for alleged abetment in overvaluation of imported goods to evade anti-dumping duty was held unsustainable because the imports were effected through High Sea Sales on the basis of agreements and banking-channel payments, and the declared transaction value could not be rejected on the department's premise of a lower supplier price. Reliance on statements recorded under section 108, without permitting requested cross-examination, did not justify sustaining the allegation of intentional misdeclaration. Following binding tribunal precedent, the foundation for invoking extended limitation and penal consequences failed, resulting in setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. - CESTAT
Penalty under sections 112(a) and 114AA for alleged abetment in overvaluation of imported goods to evade anti-dumping duty was held unsustainable because the imports were effected through High Sea Sales on the basis of agreements and banking-channel payments, and the declared transaction value could not be rejected on the department's premise of a lower supplier price. Reliance on statements recorded under section 108, without permitting requested cross-examination, did not justify sustaining the allegation of intentional misdeclaration. Following binding tribunal precedent, the foundation for invoking extended limitation and penal consequences failed, resulting in setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
