2017 (7) TMI 149

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....with the investigation of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence having unearthed a common modus operandi, they are taken up for disposal together. The three importers, M/s Swiss Cross, M/s Sunshine Enterprise and M/s Shree Venkateshwar Plastic Products, purportedly owned by Shri Bharat I Mehta, Shri RVV Regava Charyulu and Shri PVB Charry, were allegedly dummy fronts set up to enable transactions of 'LCD watch modules' between Shri Naresh Sukhwani and his brother, Shri Kenny Sukhwani, based in Hong Kong. 2. Import of 'LCD watch modules' was restricted in the Import Export Policy of 1992-97 and could be imported without license only by an actual user/manufacturer. The three importer-companies were established to give the impression that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... refusal to allow cross-examination of Shri Suresh Seth on the ground that he was a co-accused. The appraisal of the value of the imported goods by referring to the export declaration made at Hong Kong is also challenged tests as being violative of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. 6. M/s Swiss Cross, M/s Sunshine Enterprise and M/s Shree Venkateshwar Plastic Products also challenge the impugned order for recovery of differential duty from them on the ground that they were not the beneficiaries of the import. The other appellants on whom penalties have been imposed seek the quashing of the impugned order on the ground that no evidence has been brought on record to establish their connection wit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to the test of validity. 10. In view of the preliminary objections to the manner in which the adjudicating authority has articulated conclusions in the impugned order, we will have to ascertain the legality of the evidence which has been relied upon. Furthermore, the fundamental issue of whether a notice under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 is legal and proper when the imports are yet subject to the provisions of section 18 of Customs Act, 1962 also needs to be answered. 11. Doubtlessly, the decision of the Tribunal in Lanco Kondapally Power Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax & Customs, Visakhapatnam-II [2015 (319) ELT 309 (Tri-Bang)] cited by Learned Authorised Representative holding that '6(b)(7) .... In view of....