Customs under-valuation demand quashed for lack of evidence, non-supply of documents and non-compliance with Sections 108 and 138B

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CESTAT set aside the order-in-original enhancing assessable value and demanding differential customs duty, interest, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties. It held that the department failed to discharge the burden of proving under-valuation, having relied only on comparison with prices of other importers' consignments from different suppliers without cogent evidence of extra consideration or parallel invoices. The Tribunal further held that export documents from Uzbekistan relied upon by the department were neither supplied to the importer nor shown to be reliable, and the unsigned commercial invoice had no evidentiary value. Statements recorded under s.108 CA, 1962 were held inadmissible for non-compliance with s.138B, vitiating findings based on them.....