2025 (9) TMI 1347

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appeals arise from a common order [order-in-original no. 145/2013/CAC/CC(I)/AB/Gr.V dated 30th December 2013] of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai and is one of the several series of imports that were taken up for investigation for mis-declaration of value of 'used cranes' in which, purportedly and in tune with 'standard operating procedure' for assessment, the declarations of value were computed from the weight thereof and standard unit rate. It is in circumstances of similar dispute that the imports effected by M/s GS Sethi & Sons and M/s Auto World against nine bill of entry filed by former between April 2006 and July 2010 and by the latter on 10th September 2007 were subjected to proceedings stemming from show cause notice issu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of chartered engineer their plea for cross-examination of the certifying authority was rejected peremptorily. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in Karim Jaria and Crown Lifters Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Import-I), Mumbai [2022 (4) TMI 948 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parle Beverages Pvt Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1998 (98) ELT 585 (SC)]. 5. Learned Authorized Representative reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6. An identical issue on valuation of similar goods had come up before the Tribunal and, while setting aside unsupported appropriation, the re-assessment was called in question on the plea of importer therein that relian....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e whole case of undervaluation is essentially based on statements are certain people and the confessional statement of Shri Karim Jaria. However, the statements to not corroborate with each other... We are unable to appreciate these gaps in the proceedings. 7.2 The Counsel contended that cross-examination of persons whose evidence was relied upon such as Shri Brijesh Gala, was not allowed. In his findings the Commissioner simply brushes aside the request by stating that he does not find any compelling reasons for offering the cross-examination. The Commissioner relies on various judgements to state that cross-examination is not a matter of right. We find that the reliance placed on these judgements is misplaced and misunderstood.......