https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339008 Competing chartered engineer opinions on imported goods required the authorities to explain why the later adverse report was preferred; because no adequate reason was recorded, the doubtful third report could not justify reclassification, duty demand, confiscation, or penalties. The denial of cross-examination of the expert whose opinion was relied upon also breached natural justice, and an order based on untested evidence could not stand. The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed. en-us Mon, 09 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Aug 2017 14:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339008 Competing chartered engineer opinions on imported goods required the authorities to explain why the later adverse report was preferred; because no adequate reason was recorded, the doubtful third report could not justify reclassification, duty demand, confiscation, or penalties. The denial of cross-examination of the expert whose opinion was relied upon also breached natural justice, and an order based on untested evidence could not stand. The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 09 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339008