2001 (11) TMI 733

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... taken for investigation. The party was issued a number of reminders by the investigating authorities but they did not co-operate with them. However, the appellants vide their letter dated 15-10-1999 authorised one Shri Deepak R. Borker (for short Shri D.R. Borker) to represent them and also to depose on their behalf during the course of investigation. The authorities recorded a statement from one Shri Subhash Kapila, Prop., of M/s. Emkay Enterprises (manufacturer of gaskets) at Industrial Estate, Bombay, Andheri, Kurla Road, Mumbai on 26-5-2000. Shri Subhash Kapila on seeing the samples drawn from the exported consignment deposed that the value per set of gasket would only be Rs. 4.80 as against the declared value between Rs. 246/- to Rs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in his impugned order dated 1-2-2001 observed that Shri D.R. Borker was their own authorised representative and there was no question of allowing his cross examination. As regards Shri Subhash Kapila, it is observed that he is the proprietor of a unit which manufactures gaskets for automobiles. The Commissioner in his order has further observed that for the market value of goods, the best judge are the people in the market and when a manufacturer of similar goods gives the break up of price, unless there is a major infirmity, the same has to be accepted. Accordingly, the Commissioner denied the cross examination of Shri Subhash Kapila to the appellants. The Commissioner in his order held that the exported goods were liable for confiscation....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. JDR for the respondents on the contrary states that the appellants had given full authority to Shri D.R. Borker to represent them and plead their case. Shri D.R. Borker in his statement dated 14-6-2000 had admitted that there was over valuation of the exported goods and it was resorted to, to claim higher amount of drawback. In view of this fact, it is contended by the ld. JDR that there was no ground to afford an opportunity of cross examination of Shri Subhash Kapila. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. As rightly contended by the ld. Counsel for the appellants, the only evidence on the basis of which the Commissioner has arrived at the conclusion that the exported goods were overvalued and higher amoun....