2019 (6) TMI 1229 - AT - Customs

Principles of natural justice - cross-examination of the persons denied whose statements were relied upon for issuance of said show cause notice - recording of voluntary statements - reliability on the statements - Misdeclaration of value of imported goods - 14 inch colour picture tube - HELD THAT - Revenue did not have any evidence to corroborate with the voluntary statements. It is settled principal of law that the assessment of Bill of Entry is an adjudication order and if within the period provided under customs act appeal before Jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals) is not filed then the assessment becomes final and such final assessment cannot be reopened - In the present case the assessment were made during the period from May 2010 to January 2011 and after the appeal period of around three months were over the said assessment became final and therefore through the said show cause notice dated 29 May 2015 the said assessments were not open for reassessment. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - The assessment were finalized during May 2010 to January 2011 and all the information required for assessment was provided by the appellant and therefore the allegation of suppression of fact made on 29 May 2015 are not sustainable. Therefore the proceedings are hit by limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Allegation of evasion of anti-dumping duty
- Cross-examination denial of persons whose statements were relied upon
- Validity of the assessment and imposition of anti-dumping duty
- Allegations of overvaluation and suppression of facts
- Limitation period for reassessment

Analysis:
1. Evasion of Anti-Dumping Duty: The case involved the import of 14-inch color picture tubes and the detection of evasion of anti-dumping duty by a firm importing these tubes. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence conducted investigations regarding the importers, including the appellant. The appellant was alleged to have overvalued the imported goods to avoid paying anti-dumping duty, based on statements and investigations.

2. Cross-Examination Denial: The appellant sought cross-examination of individuals on whose statements the allegations were based, but this request was denied by the Original Authority. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue lacked evidence to corroborate the statements, highlighting a lack of substantiation for the allegations made.

3. Assessment and Anti-Dumping Duty: The Original Authority rejected the assessable value declared in the Bills of Entry, reduced the value, and imposed anti-dumping duty along with penalties. However, the Tribunal observed that the assessments finalized between May 2010 and January 2011 had become final as no appeal was filed within the appeal period, rendering the reassessment through the show cause notice improper.

4. Overvaluation and Suppression: The appellant contested the allegations of overvaluation and suppression of facts, arguing that the assessments were finalized with all necessary information provided during the relevant period. The Tribunal found the allegations of suppression made in 2015 unsustainable due to the finalized assessments and lack of evidence supporting the claims.

5. Limitation Period: The Tribunal held that since the assessments were finalized within the relevant period and all required information was submitted, the proceedings initiated in 2015 were beyond the normal period of limitation. As a result, the impugned order was deemed unsustainable both on merits and in terms of limitation, leading to the allowance of both appeals by setting aside the impugned order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the lack of evidence supporting the allegations, the finalized assessments, and the improper initiation of proceedings beyond the limitation period, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and the allowance of the appeals.