2015 (10) TMI 268

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....998. In 2001, DRI detected that the goods of the kind imported by appellant were undervalued causing prejudice to Revenue. Therefore proceedings were initiated against appellant to reassess the value of imported goods. 2.1 Ld. Advocate explains that this appeal is in second round of litigation before Tribunal. It was before the Tribunal in Appeal No.C/382/2003. That was disposed by Final Order No.1116/2010 dt. 22.10.2010 remanding the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for rehearing granting fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the de novo proceeding raised demand overvaluing the goods and upheld the adjudication. In the adjudication, there was levy of duty on the differential value. So also there was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1 Appellant's allegation that 108 statement was recorded at the belated hour and also under duress is not substantiated by evidence showing raising of the said grievance before the higher authority nor any FIR filed. Therefore, plea of the appellant on this count fails. 5.2 We have perused the statement recorded by the authorities during the course of investigation (copy of which is available at pages 39 to 48 of appeal folder). It may be appreciated that 108 statement is recorded in the judicial proceedings and it cannot be faulted without any evidence being led to show that is incredible. Law is settled that customs officers not being police officers evidence recorded under section 108 of the Act cannot be discarded unless it is ot....