TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 702
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt] in this appeal. In the impugned order, the Commissioner decided the proposals in the Show Cause Notice dated 9.2.2007 [SCN] issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [DRI] and confirmed demand of Rs. 21.09 lakhs under the proviso to section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 [Act] on the appellant in respect of the goods imported between February 2003 to September 2004 along with interest under section 28AB of the Act and imposed an equal amount as penalty under section 114A of the Act. 2. The facts which led to the issue of the impugned order are that the appellant had imported 12 consignments component of Digital Receiver Sets of Chinese origin to assemble Direct to Home (DTH) Assembly. 3. Receiving intelligence that the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hers had imported similar goods at higher prices. The Commissioner did not even allow cross-examination of other importers whose values were relied as evidence to reject the appellant's transaction values. (iii) The values declared by the appellant were already enhanced at the time of assessment by the proper officer. A second enhancement of value of the same goods is not sustainable. Reliance is placed on the following decisions. a) Mohan Meakin Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Kochi [2000 (115)ELT 3 (SC)] b) Agarwal Metals & Alloys vs Commissioner of Customs, Kandla [2021 (378) ELT 155 (Tri-Ahmd.)] c) Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai vs Lord Shiva Overseas [2005 (181) ELT 213 (Tri-Mumbai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o importing same goods in the relevant period; (iv) The onus on the department has been discharged beyond doubt. The gross undervaluation was done by the appellant which has also been admitted by them; (v) The statements made before Customs Officers are admissible as evidence in a court of Law as Customs Officers are not Police Officers. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Surjeet Singh Chhabra Vs Union of India 1997 (89) E.L.T. 646 (S.C.) (vi) The impugned order may be upheld and the appeal may be dismissed. Findings 7. We have considered the submissions on both sides and perused the records. Section 14 of the Act as applicable during the relevant period provided for valuation of the goods as per price at which such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were wrong and why values of contemporaneous imports now adopted by DRI were correct. 9. Thus, the demand of duty redetermining the assessable values in the Bills of Entry cannot, in our considered opinion, be sustained in the absence of any evidence or reason as to why the values determined by the proper officer assessing the Bills of Entry were not correct. 10. We also find that the demand has been issued under the proviso to section 28(1) of the Act which can be invoked only if the non-payment or short payment of duty is due to collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts. The SCN was only issued based on the fact that some other importers had imported goods at higher prices and based on statements recorded under sectio....