TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1537
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 24.08.2012 89/JC/PPG/2016 dated 04.03.2016 CC(A) Cus/DII/ICD/542/2016 dated 4.7.2016 20,08,933 2. C/52897/20 16 V(SIIB)21/ENQ/113/20 12/9400 dated 04.09.2012 77/JC/PPG/2016 dated 20.01.2016 CC(A) Cus/DII/ICD/541/2016 dated 4.7.2016 32,85,849 3. C/52904/20 16 V(SIIB)21/ENQ/113/20 12/12411 dated 02.12.2013 64/PPG/JC/2015 dated 27.11.2015 CC(A) Cus/DII/ICD/543 /2016 dated 4.7.2016 18,26,677.37 2. Briefly stated, an information was received on 09.01.2012 through an officer of DRI about one consignment covered under Bill of Entry No. 5641814 dated 03.01.2012 to have been mis-declared in terms of description of goods and value. Acting upon the said information, on 12.01.2012, the officers of Special Investigation and Investigation Branch [SIIB] visited ICD Ballabgarh and examined the import documents of the said consignment filed by the importer - M/s Premier Plastic Industries, the documents were filed through Customs House Agent [CHA] - M/s PCC Consultant. In the Bill of Entry the goods were declared as "Urea Houseware - Trays and Bowls" as detailed in show cause notice as follows: S. No. Mark & No. Description Quantity No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e said proprietor viz. Shri Rajat Khanna was also recorded to the same effect. Based on the proceedings of the entire investigation and also from the records of ICD Ballabgarh, department came to know that the respondent - importer had also cleared 20 such consignments of similar goods in last five years, as have been tabulated in para 8 of the show cause notice. 2.4 In addition, the department also obtained documents from outside India duly authenticated by the Indian High Commission abroad with respect to the goods imported by the respondent. An overseas enquiry was also called upon pursuant thereto. It was observed that the respondent - importer was undervaluing their imported goods in a planned manner. However, the extent of undervaluation was almost constant over the years i.e. approximately 68% of the FOB value declared by the exporter at the port of shipment. 2.5 Based on these observations that a Show Cause Notice No. 113/2012/173 dated 24.08.2012 was served upon the importer respondent proposing the recovery of the differential customs duty of such amount as tabulated above. The said proposal has been confirmed vide the respective order in original as tabulated above....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eeds no further proof. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surjit Singh Chabbra Vs. Union of India [1997 (89) ELT 646] has been relied upon. Finally submitting that the decisions of Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC)] and Commissioner of Customs Vs. South India Television (P) Ltd. [2007 (214) ELT 3 (SC)] as relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals), are not applicable to the facts of the present case, the orders under challenge are prayed to be set aside and the appeals are prayed to be allowed. 5. No written submissions have been filed by the respondent importer. However, they have relied upon the grounds of appeal where primarily the violation of principles of natural justice has been objected and extended period of limitation is mentioned to be not invocable in the given set of circumstances. It is submitted that the entire case of department is based on the assumption and presumptions. The only document of reliance is the export declaration with respect to four Bills of Entries in alien language and a chart prepared by the customs. The said document is not at all admissible into evidence. There is no other corroboration produced by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence alleged to have been committed by any person under this Act, and such document is tendered by the prosecution in evidence against him or against him and any other person who is tried jointly with him, the Court shall- (a) presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the signature and every other part of such document which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which the Court may reasonably assume to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested; (b) admit the document in evidence, notwithstanding that it is not duly stamped, if such document is otherwise admissible in evidence; (c) in a case falling under clause (i) also presume, unless the contrary is proved, the truth of the contents of such document. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "document" includes inventories, photographs and lists certified by a Magistrate under sub-section (1-C) of section 110." 7.2 In the present case, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent. It is held that the department has sufficiently proved that the documents were obtained through proper channel from the competent authorities. Irrespective the documents were the photo copies of the declaration made before Chinese customs. Section 139 of the Customs Act had rightly been invoked by the original adjudicating authority. The section otherwise nowhere mandates for the document under that section to only be in original. 7.4 Further it is observed that the copies are duly been stamped by the Indian Customs. The chart prepared by the Indian Customs is admittedly in English language. It is not the case of importer respondent that the copies of those documents and that chart were not provided to the importer. The said documents have been objected for being in alien language. There was no bar with the importer to get those documents translated to prove contrary to what has been translated in the chart prepared by the department in consultation with the Hong Kong/Chinese Customs pursuant to the overseas inquiry initiated in the present matter. There is no such translation or any similar document produced by the importer respondent. 7.5 The decisions relied upon by C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailable through notary public in India, could also be available abroad. The availability of such mechanism cannot be made a mandate under the Customs law. If co-relatable documents were obtained independently from foreign countries from reliable sources (such as Customs) under their covering letter duly authenticated and signed by the said authorities, we do not find anything wrong in relying upon them. Further, the provisions under the Act of 1948 especially Section 3(2) does not require every document to be attested. From the perusal of the record and the statements made during the investigation, it appears to us that the fax messages cannot be brushed aside lightly mainly since their exchange was never contested by the appellants. The argument that the fax messages cannot be relied upon as they do not bear any signature does not, in our opinion, hold water. 9. In the light of the above discussion we hold that the sole document of reliance is the sufficient evidence in terms of Section 139 of the Customs Act. 9.1 Further, the goods imported were admittedly declared as Houseware, Trays and Bowls. The test report dated 20.01.2012 has proved those goods as 'Urea Formaldehyde R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icers and therefore the Evidence Act's bar on police confessions does not apply to them. This verdict arrives at a moment when Section 108 is under renewed judicial scrutiny. In Radhika Agarwal v Union of India, W.P.(Crl.) No.336 of 2018 & Connected matters a three-judge Bench addressed a batch of 279 petitions challenging the arrest and interrogation powers of Customs and GST officers. The Court upheld those powers but insisted on procedural safeguards such as recorded reasons for arrest, adherence to constitutional guarantees and protection against coercive pre-adjudicatory action. Crucially, it reaffirmed that Customs officers are not police officers, meaning Section 108 statements retain their full evidentiary weight. In Poolpandi v Superintendent, Central Excise [1992 SCR (3) 247] the Supreme Court rejected the argument that questioning a person in a Customs office- without the presence of a lawyer or friends-violates Article 21. The Court held that such interrogation does not, by itself, infringe the right to life and personal liberty. The decision of Surjit Singh Chabbra (supra) is hereby relied upon. Hence it is held that the importer has clearly admitted the undervaluation....