2025 (5) TMI 1934

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0 filed in the name of M/s. Royal traders, Chennai through Air Cargo Complex, Chennai was taken up for investigation by DRI and the said Bill of Entry was filed for clearance of 1239 kgs. of goods declared as "China Glass Imitation Stone". The commercial invoice accompanying the said Bill of Entry apparently indicated the value as $12 per Kg. and the total value was $14,868. The examination of the said cargo appears to have been conducted in the presence of one Shri G. James claiming himself as the IEC holder and the Proprietor of M/s. Royal Traders, Chennai; on examination, the DRI officers appears to have found "888" brand glass Chatons of various sizes instead of what was declared; the same was seized by drawing a mahazar on 06.10.2010. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts and Shri Harendra Singh Pal, Ld. Authorized Representative for the Respondent. 5. From the perusal of the Order-in-Original and the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal urged before us, we find that the Proprietor of M/s.Royal traders has not claimed the ownership of the imported goods in question; so also the other appellant, namely Shri S.Iqbal has claimed that he is in no way concerned with the imports under dispute and that therefore, the alleged discrepancy in evaluation could not be imputed against him. The other crucial fact that remains intact, is that the payment of Rs.6,88,328/- on 26.10.2010 towards part payment of differential duty by M/s.Royal Traders. The said amount has been appropriated towards duty. 6. We have....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rting by misdeclaring the consignment and also declaring very less transaction value. We have recorded elsewhere in the earlier paragraph of this order the modus operandi and the involvement of many persons as explained by Shri Iqbal himself, but strangely we do not find any retraction to his own statement, rather he has chosen to request for cross-examining the other persons. Had there been any inconsistency from the statements of other persons vis-a-vis his own statement, then perhaps cross examination would have brought the truth on record, but it is not the case here. Hence, we are of the view that denial of cross examination is of no consequence. 8. From the record, we find that the Original Authority has chosen to go by a contempor....