2016 (11) TMI 5

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R) for the respondent ORDER M/s. Sunspur Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in import of Body sprays.  Ashok Chhajed, the appellant was partner of the firm.  DRI investigated the case of evasion of customs duty against Sunspur Pvt. Ltd.  The case was based on various statements recorded by DRI and information collected from High Commission of India, London.  Information received from ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....igh Commission of India, London has not been made part of the relied upon documents to the show-cause notice and therefore cannot be used against them.  He further argued that the statements of Ashok Chhajed recorded on 11.04.2001, 18.04.2001, 23.04.2001 were retracted by Ashok Chhajed vide letter dated 09.06.2001.  He further argued that while the total evasion of duty is Rs. 23,08,177/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the rival submissions.  From the statement of the appellant recorded by the DRI it can be seen that the appellant has been consistently taking a stand that the primary role in negotiating the price and undervaluation with foreign supplier was of M.L. Patwari, though he too was in contact with Pannessar.  The statement however contains an admission of undervaluation on the part of the app....