TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 334
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....original authority, while imposing penalty of Rs. 6,46,000 on the importer, confiscated the car under section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 but permitted redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 37,70,000. 2. On appeal, the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal owing to which the dispute is now before us. 3. According to Learned Counsel for the appellant, the lower authorities had erred in relying upon the value of the goods in the market of exporting country, as reported in the certificate of Chartered Engineer, which was expressly prohibited insofar as rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 is concerned. It was also submitted that the price had been obtained through research on the internet which, according to him, had been held by the Tribunal in Aggarwal Distributors (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2000 (117) ELT 49 (Tribunal)] to be unacceptable. It is also further submitted that, particularly in the context of differing opinion of two Chartered Engineers, their request for cross-examination of the second Chartered Engineer should have been allowed. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in DR Soneta & So....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly invoked. 5. It is not in dispute that the assessable value was determined on the basis of recommendation of one of the Chartered Engineer who himself had relied upon internet research to ascertain probable price. The Tribunal, in re DR Soneta & Sons, has held that '16. It would appear from '9. Residual method.- (1) Subject to the provisions of rule 3, where the value of imported goods cannot be determined under the provisions of any of the preceding rules, the value shall be determined using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these rules and on the basis of data available in India; Provided that the value so determined shall not exceed the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale for delivery at the time and place of importation in the course of international trade, when the seller or buyer has no interest in the business of other and price is the sole consideration for the sale or offer for sale. (2) No value shall be determined under the provisions of this rule on the basis of - (i) the selling price in India of the goods produced in India; (ii) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cannot be considered to be "computer print out" merely because it has been displayed on internet. Similarly, the baggage price relied on in the show cause notice has no evidentiary value for import of goods in the course of international trade. Further, as is rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate, these prices are merely the assertion of the customs authorities in the show cause notice without any documentary evidence in support of that assertion.' 6. Furthermore, it is seen that there was a substantial variance in the reported recommendations of two Chartered Engineers and there can be no doubt that the reliance placed on the second of these should have been contingent upon proper opportunity having been afforded for controverting the content therein. It is admitted that opportunity for cross-examination was not granted. Even though the documents called for from noticee, as narrated in the impugned order, had not been furnished, the consequence thereof would have been applicability of rule 3(4) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 which, as held by us supra, has not been complied with. In these circumstances, the impugned order deser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....z. Osgood v. Nelson reported in (1872) L.R.5H. L, 636 and University of Ceylon v. Fernando reported in 1960 All E. R. 631. The former case dealt with dismissal of Osgood from a Corporate office and the question that arose of defending himself and the Court came to the conclusion that every possible opportunity that could be given to any man was given to Osgood in this matter; that he was allowed to cross examine witnesses and was permitted also to call as many witnesses as he pleased. The observations of House of Lords in this case clearly suggest that the right of cross-examination is a requirement of natural justice, apart from special and exceptional cases. In the latter case (University of Ceylon v. Fernando) the Privy Council held that the persons conducting disciplinary enquiry could interview witnesses separately and were not obliged to offer to the accused an opportunity of confronting or cross-examining the hostile witnesses provided he was given proper indication of the case which he had to meet, but it might have been a breach of natural justice to reject a positive request by the accused to be permitted to confront and cross-examine them. The facts were that plaintiff F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te the proceedings of the commission as failing to comply with the requirements of natural justice in the circumstances of the present case." The position that emerges very clearly from the aforesaid statement .of law which is to be found in Halsbury and the aforesaid two English decisions is that no obligation is cast upon any Tribunal exercising quasi-judicial function to keep witnesses present and offer them for cross-examination unasked, provided, of course, their statements already recorded behind the back of the party against whom they are to be used are made available to such party and it would be for the party against whom they are intended to be used to make a specific request to call those witnesses for cross-examination. In the absence of such specific request being made it would not be possible for such party to make a grievance that the principles of natural justice have been committed breach of.' 8. The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in Sunder Ispat Limited v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad [2002 (141) ELT 24 (AP)], has held that '6. Keeping in view the decision of the Calcutta High Court as also of this Court, we d....