2008 (8) TMI 188

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he adjudicating authorities could have ignored evidence of comparative invoicing as available under section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 where they allowed similar exports at same or higher price? (2) Whether the customs and adjudicating authorities could have alleged over invoicing in absence of any evidence on record? (3) Whether the Customs and adjudicating authorities could have differed from the Government fixed cut off price as fixed by the AEPC? (4) Whether retracted statements could be relied upon as the only piece of evidence at all? (5) If so whether mere for not showing service upon customs could the affirmation and notarization, be, ignored of the same? (6) Whether any penalty was justified in absence of any evide....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on. On 25.5.2001, the Commissioner ordered confiscation of goods valued at Rs.10,55,875/- (FOB) under section 113(d) and section 113(i) of the Act. A redemption fine of Rs.2 lacs was imposed along with penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the appellant and penalties of varying amounts on other persons. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has, after hearing the learned advocate for the appellant, noticed that one Shri Alakh Niranjan R. Saboo was the power of attorney holder of the appellant. That the appellant was a proprietary concern owned by Smt. Krishna A. Saboo, wife of the power of attorney holder. That the lady was also a partner in M/s Krishna Impex. M/s Ankita Textile was owned by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ore the Commissioner and the Tribunal ought to have called for the said evidence by directing the representative of the department appearing before the Tribunal to produce the original file of adjudication before the Commissioner. 5. The aforesaid contention deserves to be stated only to be rejected. It is not the case of the appellant that the appellant had called upon the Tribunal to make such a requisition, because the appellant was not in possession of the evidence. In the appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal, the primary onus is always on the appellant and the Tribunal is not expected and cannot on its own undertake to discharge that onus by calling upon the other side to produce the evidence in support of the appeal. T....