TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mil Nadu) for supply of CTV sets. On account of acute shortage of CPT in India and late supply of CTV attracted penalty under the contract, hence Appellant was forced to import CPT from outside the Country. Appellant thus imported 14 inches and 21 inches CPT from M/s Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Malaysia vide 24 Bill of Entry between 2.7.2009 to 8.3.2011. In respect of which remittances were made through LC directly to the overseas supplier. 2. On the basis of some information received in respect of one firm namely M/s J.R International, and the import of CPT from M/s Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Malaysia and on the basis of statement of Sri Umesh Gulhar (proprietor of M/s Tessuti (HK) Co. Ltd., Hong Kong), Sri Sandeep Devgan (proprietor of M/s Ea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the statements of Sri Umesh Gulhar (proprietor of M/s Tessuti (HK) Co. Ltd., Hong Kong), Sri Sandeep Devgan (proprietor of M/s Eastron Overseas, Delhi) & Sri Vijay Aggrawal (Proprietor of M/s J.R International, Delhi) without producing these persons for cross-examination. 4. Appellant filed a detailed reply requesting for cross examination of Sri Sandeep Devgan, Sri Umesh Gulhar and Sri Vinay Aggrawal and also submitted that Appellant has nothing to do with evasion of anti-dumping duty by M/s J.R International. It was also submitted that no inquiry has been made with regard to import of goods of same quality by Companies such as L.G, Samsung and Samtel. It was also submitted that third party evidence cannot be relied upon to reject trans....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hence the allegation of suppression of fact made on 27.5.2014 is not sustainable. 3. Entire proceedings were initiated on the basis of statements given by three persons i.e. Sri Umesh Gulhar(proprietor of M/s Tessuti (HK) Co. Ltd., Hong Kong), Sri Sandeep Devgan(proprietor of M/s Eastron Overseas, Delhi)& Sri Vijay Aggrawal(Proprietor of M/s J.R International, Delhi), who were never produced for cross-examination, hence there statements cannot be read as evidence against the Appellant. 4. No enquiry has been conducted and there is also no evidence on record to corroborate the voluntary statement of Sri Gaganpreet Singh Malhotra. In absence of any such corroborative evidences, his statement cannot be solely relied upon to f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that Revenue did not have any evidence to corroborate with the voluntary statements. We note that it is settled principal of law that the assessment of Bill of Entry is an adjudication order and if within the period provided under customs act appeal before Jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals) is not filed then the assessment becomes final and such final assessment cannot be reopened. In the present case the assessment were made during the period from May 2010 to January 2011 and after the appeal period of around three months were over the said assessment became final and therefore through the said show cause notice dated 29 May, 2015 the said assessments were not open for reassessment. Further we note that the assessment were finalized du....