2026 (1) TMI 221

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... penalty upon the appellant, as a proprietor of M/s Chemical Connection, under sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 [the Customs Act]. The extended period of limitation as contemplated under section 28(4) of the Customs Act has also been invoked for this purpose. 2. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the importers of melamine had resorted to evasion of antidumping duty by over valuation of the goods imported. The antidumping duty was leviable on the import of melamine from China in terms of a Notification dated February 19, 2010. This Notification provides that anti-dumping duty shall be imposed at a rate which is equivalent to the difference of US$ 1681.49 per MT and the landed value of the g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the Principal Commissioner on the statements made by the three co-noticees. The Commissioner has not accepted the request made by the Appellant for cross examination of the three notices for the reason that they had voluntarily made the statements which were not retracted. This approach of the Principal Commissioner regarding the issue as to whether cross-examination was to be permitted or not cannot be said to be a correct approach, for an opportunity should have been given to the appellant to ascertain by cross-examination whether the statements were voluntary or not. It is also necessary to note that the sale transactions were made through banking channels on the basis of agreements between the parties. 32. The principles of n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....atements made by the three co-noticees, that the transaction value has been rejected. The Appellant has also stated that the goods could not have been directly imported. The transaction value, in view of the provision of section 14(1) of the Customs Act and aforesaid discussion could not have been rejected." [emphasis supplied] 5. The Division Bench also examined whether the extended period of limitation under section 28(4) of the Customs Act could have been invoked. After referring to various decisions, the Division Bench held that the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside. 6. In the present case also, the case of the department is based on the premise that the imp....