TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1330
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s Belstar Jewellery (LLC), Dubai, for which assessable value of Rs. 2,65,22,800 had been declared in bill of entry no. 100434/23.12.2008 filed by them. The 'trade advisory panel', to whom the appraisal of value had been referred, indicated it to be US $ 337,056.63 for 24 lots and advised that the remaining two lots be sent to another set of experts in view of size being different. A second panel examined all the lots and concluded that overinvoicing to the extent of 39% at US $ 376,514.55 (Rs. 189,19,856.14) and that the two specific lots had value of US$ 66,870 indicating overvaluation of 153% with reference to declared value of US$169, 436. 2. Commissioner of Customs, Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai, in impugned or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndicate values higher than that declared thus laying the charge of over-valuation open to question. Debit advice issued by M/s IndusInd Bank was also furnished as evidence of declared value being the transaction value. 4. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Tribunal in JB and Brother Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2021 (378) ELT 803 (Tri-Mumbai)] and in Sahil Diamonds Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad [2010 (250) ELT 310 (Tri-Ahmd)]. Learned Counsel also contended that cross-examination of individuals had been incorrectly refused by the adjudicating authority. 5. Learned Authorized Representative argued that the exercise in valuation had been undertaken in accordance with established norms and instruct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctual variation in value in these two reports is thus only to the tune of 8.3%. This being the true position, there was no need to allow cross-examination of the trade panel valuers on this count also and the attack on the reports made by the noticees on the ground that how there can be difference in values suggested by the trade panel members is not sustainable and have no merits especially when the value difference in two reports is well within this range.' in the impugned order makes it abundantly clear that no prejudice had been caused to appellants by the discarding of plea for cross-examination. 6. The issue involved in this appeal is alleged overvaluation of 'cut and polished diamonds' for the adjudicating authority has relied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k devolving on assessing authority to an outside agency without even the formality of adopting such valuation as its own. There could be no greater alienation of responsible and responsive administration in tax collection as legislated by Parliament. 8. There is no finding that the declared value is inconsistent with the essence of section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 nor of any ground, within the prescription of rule 3(4) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 enabling recourse to subsequent alternatives. Nor is there any narration in the impugned order that can lead us to conclude that the process set for invoking rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 had bee....