2025 (10) TMI 461

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed 30.10.2019 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs and rejects the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. The Joint Commissioner, by the order dated 30.10.2019, rejected the assessable value of „polyester knitted fabric mixed‟ declared in the two Bills of Entry dated 03.10.2019 in terms of rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 [the 2007 Valuation Rules] and reassessed the same under rule 5 of the 2007 Valuation Rules. The Joint Commissioner also ordered for recovery of the differential customs duty with penalty. The goods have also been confiscated with an option to pay redemption fine. 3. A perusal of the order passed by the Joint Commissioner would indicate that it is b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....per meter. The Director categorically admitted that he fully agreed with the method of reassessing the value of goods. As such the Appellant has accepted the re-determined value voluntarily after being satisfied with method of redetermination. It is now not open to him to go back on his statement and claim that redetermination was not legal. In this regard, I rely upon case of M/s Sodagar Knitwear [2018(362) ELT 819(T. Delhi)] which has been affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court [2018(362) ELT a 213 (SC)]. 5.3 The Appellant not only accepted his mistake but also agreed to pay differential duty voluntarily in his voluntary statement. This statement has not been retracted till date. Thus this statement is valid piece of evidence." (em....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pinion that having regard to the circumstances of the case, the statement should be admitted in evidence, in the interests of justice, except where the person who tendered the statement is dead or cannot be found. In view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 9D of the Central Excise Act or sub-section (2) of section 138B of the Customs Act, the provisions of subsection (1) of these two Acts shall apply to any proceedings under the Central Excise Act or the Customs Act as they apply in relation to proceedings before a Court. What, therefore, follows is that a person who makes a statement during the course of an inquiry has to be first examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority and thereafter the adjudicating authority....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for cross-examination of such persons. The provisions of section 9D of the Central Excise Act and section 138B(1)(b) of the Customs Act have been held to be mandatory and failure to comply with the procedure would mean that no reliance can be placed on the statements recorded either under section 14D of the Central Excise Act or under section 108 of the Customs Act. The Courts have also explained the rationale behind the precautions contained in the two sections. It has been observed that the statements recorded during inquiry/investigation by officers has every chance of being recorded under coercion or compulsion and it is in order to neutralize this possibility that statements of the witnesses have to be recorded before the adjudicating ....