2019 (11) TMI 1217 - AT - Customs

Levy of Anti-Dumping Duty - import of fabric - undervaluation of imported goods - evasion of customs duty - it is alleged that the difference between the actual price and price indicated in invoice, was received by M/s Tessuti (HK) Co. Ltd., Hong Kong through hawala channel and such payments were made to M/s Tessuti (HK) Co. Ltd., by M/s Chunghwa, Malaysia, from whom M/s J.R International imported CPT by overvaluing to avoid imposition of anti-dumping duty - request for cross-examination rejected - extended period of limitation. HELD THAT - Tribunal in the case of M/s PG Electroplast Ltd. 2019 (6) TMI 1229 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD has dealt with the appeal arising out of the same set of facts and circumstances and the same investigations made by the revenue. While dealing with the appellant s pleas, it was held that once the assessments finally done have not been challenged by way of filing an appeal there again, it was not open to the revenue to initiate the proceedings by invoking the longer period of limitation. The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of assessable value in 24 bill of entry under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Imposition of anti-dumping duty and penalties.
3. Invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962.
4. Denial of cross-examination of key witnesses.
5. Allegations of undervaluation and evasion of customs duty.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Rejection of assessable value in 24 bill of entry under Customs Act, 1962
The appellant, a television set manufacturer, imported CPT from Malaysia due to a shortage in India. The Customs Department alleged undervaluation based on statements of individuals from related firms. The show cause notice invoked Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, to re-determine assessable values. The appellant argued against reopening assessments made between 2009 and 2011, citing finality due to non-appeal. The Tribunal, referring to a similar case, held that assessments not challenged within the appeal period cannot be reopened, thus setting aside the order.

Issue 2: Imposition of anti-dumping duty and penalties
The Customs Department imposed anti-dumping duty and penalties on the appellant for alleged undervaluation. The appellant contested the reliance on third-party statements without cross-examination and lack of corroborative evidence. The Tribunal, referencing a previous judgment, emphasized that assessments finalized without appeal cannot be reopened. It noted the absence of evidence to support the allegations, leading to the decision to set aside the order and provide relief to the appellant.

Issue 3: Invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962
The Customs Department invoked the extended period of limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, to issue the show cause notice. The appellant argued that all relevant information was available during the original assessments and the delay in raising allegations was unjustified. The Tribunal, aligning with precedent, ruled that proceedings initiated beyond the prescribed time limit were unsustainable, ultimately setting aside the order.

Issue 4: Denial of cross-examination of key witnesses
The appellant requested cross-examination of key witnesses whose statements formed the basis of the allegations. The denial of this request was a crucial point of contention. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of allowing cross-examination to ensure fair proceedings, highlighting that reliance on unverified statements could not establish duty liability.

Issue 5: Allegations of undervaluation and evasion of customs duty
Allegations of undervaluation and evasion of customs duty were based on statements from individuals associated with related firms. The appellant maintained innocence and argued against the lack of concrete evidence supporting the claims. The Tribunal, echoing previous judgments, emphasized the need for corroborative evidence and fair procedures, ultimately leading to the decision to set aside the order and provide relief to the appellant.