2017 (7) TMI 78

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ttal. So also the statement of CHA and Shri Sunil Kurkute having been used against the appellant, they are to be cross examined. 2. Revenue says that when physical verification of the container was made that revealed that value of export consignment declared was higher which was proved by market enquiry. Further the quantity of goods declared was found to be lower than physical verified quantity. The appellants made not only over-valuation of the export but also the quantity of the goods declared was higher. When the goods were found to be defective, the matter was referred to the Customs House Laboratory and it was reported by the Laboratory that GSM of fabrics under Shipping Bill No.3059763 dated 19.10.2004, 3059767 dated 19.10.2004, 3....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....port goods has been misdeclared. (b) Quantity: - The exporter has declared net weight of the fabric as 33552 kgs under the said 4 shipping bills, but on physical examination had the net weight found to be 8738 kgs, so the total length of the fabric as per physical weight and GSM in respect of 33552 kgs is 250179.84 sq. mtrs. Thus there is misdeclaration in the quantity of the goods. (c) Value: - The market enquiry was conducted to ascertain the value of goods which found to be from Rs. 9 12 and the FOB value determined was Rs. 12.33 sq. mtrs. But the exporter has declared the rate per yard as US $ 0.9/0.75. Thus there is misdeclaration in the value of the goods." 6. The investigation team intercepted two loaded containe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing authority. They only challenge that market enquiry report was not confronted and cross-examination was not allowed. 8. Appellant further submitted that ARE-1 document is not disputed. That has no significance in law when appellant failed to controvert physical inventory of the goods. Therefore, such document has no evidentiary value. 9. For hearing the prayer of the appellant that cross-examination may reveal otherwise, and also market enquiry report may be confronted, only to this extent, the appeal is remanded to grant fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant only on such count. 10. Appellant is directed to make an application to adjudicating authority to fix the hearing within a month of receipt of this order. On the dat....