TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1711
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he detained goods found lying at the office-cum-godown premises were quantified/inventoried and got seized under panchnama dated 23.05.2016 were handed over to to Shri Gagan Vohra, Prop., however vide Superdaginama dated 23.05.2016. 1.1 Statement of Shri Gagan Vohra was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 where he stated that he resided in the above mentioned address along with his wife, mother and two children; that he had under-invoiced the goods and had also mis-declared the MRP at the time of import and for which he was ashamed; that he was willing to pay the differential duty; that the total duty evasion on account of mis-declaration of value and MRP was around 70-80%. As per his mutual agreement the supplier raised the low value invoices for his imports; that he remitted the differential balance amount to the supplier as per his direction. 1.2 Statement of Shri K.S. Sasi, Manager, M/s Professional Impex Pvt. Ltd. of appellant was recorded also got recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, who stated that the importer used to furnish MRP declaration on their Letter head for each and every consignments which were also submitted to Customs at the time ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. (iv) An amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) deposited during the investigation was proposed to be appropriated and adjusted towards the duty and interest demanded as above. (v) Penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 was also proposed. This proposal has been confirmed vide order-in-original bearing no. 17/2017-18 dated 26.03.2018. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this tribunal. 2. We have heard Shri Manish Khurana, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri Srimali Sadashiv, learned Authorized Representative for the department. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the impugned order is contrary to the statutory scheme of valuation under section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. There has occurred violation of principal of natural justice also for the reason that the relied upon documents were not provided to the appellant in time. Later also, with the intervention of this tribunal by interim order dated 03.07.2019 though the copies were provided but the documents were illegible and incomplete. These documents were forming t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms, Calcutta v. South India Television (P) Ltd. (2007) 6 SCC 373, has reiterated that the burden to prove undervaluation lies on the department and that valuation cannot be enhanced on assumptions or on the basis of market prices. 3.3 The case of the Department, even as projected, is not founded on any contemporaneous import data of identical or similar goods brought on record through Bills of Entry, invoices, or verifiable NIDB outputs with full particulars. No contemporaneous data from NIDB was resorted to, disclosed, or tested, despite the Appellant specifically disputing the alleged enhancement methodology. Hence, the declared transaction value cannot be rejected on conjecture, suspicion, or unverified internal worksheets. The show cause notice proposes to jump to the residual valuation rule by asserting that value could not be determined under Rules 4 to 8. Such approach is contrary to the statutory hierarchy. 3.4 Further, the show cause notice invokes Rule 6 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 and alleges non declaration of maximum retail price on the imported packages. Even assuming such allegation, any consequential determination of retail sale p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... during the course of any inquiry or proceeding under this act shall be relevant for the purpose of proving, any prosecution foreign offense under this act, truth of the facts which is contains, (a) When the person who made the statement is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or whose presents cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense, which, under the circumstances of the case, the court considers unreasonable or (b) When the person who made the statement is examined as a witness in the case before the court and the court is of the opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the statement should be admitted in evidence in the interest of justice 5.2 Bare reading of the above section manifest that under certain circumstances, as stipulated there in, statement made, and signed by the person before any officer of a gazette rank during the course of inquiry or proceedings under this act can be treated as relevant and taken into consideration if court considers it to be unreasonable to wait for such statement. We observe that though the right of cross examinati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tatements, alleging duress. Justice Shriram found the detention itself to be unconstitutional, and held that it was reasonable to infer coercion. The issue of Section 108 confessions returned to the Supreme Court this week. On 23 February, the Court closed Amad Noormamad Bakali v State of Gujarat, Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterates that confession to Customs officer is admissible as evidence. The Supreme Court reaffirmed one of the most contested principles in Indian evidence law. Placing reliance on K.I. Pavunny v Assistant Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate, Cochin (1997), the Court held that statements recorded by customs officers are admissible as substantive evidence provided they are made voluntarily, and do not attract the bar under Sections 24, 25, or 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. The basis for this distinction is that Customs officers are not police officers 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. Last year, 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 p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mandatory even in a situation when it is not possible to obtain the certificate from the competent entity? The Hon'ble court noted that Section 65B(1) differentiates between the 'original' electronic record, which is contained in the computer in which the information is first stored - and the secondary copies that are made from the primary electronic record. In that case it was held that the original electronic record would be the computer of the Election Commission in which the video footage is first stored. The CDs where the content of the video recording is copied shall constitute the secondary copies of the electronic record. It was held that a certificate under Section 65B(4) shall have to be obtained only when the secondary copies of the electronic record are produced before the Court. It was also observed that section 65B (1) differentiates between the primary electronic record i.e. the device where the information was first stored and the secondary copies that are made from that primary electronic record. The Hon'ble Court held that the requirement of a certificate under section 65B (4) must be satisfied when a secondary copy of a primary electronic record is produced be....