9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... examination was sought but was denied have to be ignored which render the impugned order unsustainable. Furthermore, there is an evidence of exchange of emails for negotiating the price of the impugned goods which were supplied on “as is where is basis” without any warranty. The goods were examined, assessed and cleared by Customs and were no longer available for re-examination. It is trite to say that if the impugned goods were not of prime quality, their value cannot be compared with the value of goods of prime quality. For valuation of non prime quality goods supplied on 'as is where is basis' without warranty, their physical examination is necessary to ascertain their value and there is nothing on record to establish that the impugned g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Joginder Singh, proprietor of both M/s. Matchwell Chemical Works and M/s. Sherry International and on Shri Johny Singh. 2. The appellant have contented that: (i) the allegations were sustained inter alia on the basis of the statements of various persons like M/s. Poonam Cargo Services, CHA, Shri Sanjay Dua, Manager of M/s. Anil Verma, CHA, Shri Rakesh Saini, Executive Logistics, M/s. Sony India (P) Ltd., Nobutomo Fujimori, General Manager, Recording Group Media of Sony India, Dalip, etc. Their cross examination was sought but was denied by the adjudicating authority who falsely recorded that during personal hearing, cross examination was eschewed. The appellants claimed that they never gave up the right to cross examination and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ious persons clearly establish under-valuation. 3. We have considered the contentions of both sides. 4. We find that CESTAT vide the interim order no. 1041-1043/2014 dated 31.12.2014 passed the following order: 1. In reply to the show cause notice dated 19.04.2002 alleging undervaluation of the imported professional video cassettes, the appellant categorically and in detail vide para 5 and reiterated in interim prayer B, of its reply to the show cause notice demanded for cross-examination of various individuals mentioned in para 5 of the reply. The impugned order also records that the appellant did seek cross examination. 2. In para 11 however, the order states that initially the appellant strenuously asked for cross-examin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Dharampal Satyapal Vs. CCE 2015 (8) SCC 519 in which Hon ble Supreme Court essentially held that cross examination of a person is required to be granted if the absence of cross examination of that person will cause prejudice to the appellant. It is not in doubt that as statements of various persons whose cross examination was sought by the appellants were relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority against the appellants not permitting their cross examination obviously caused prejudice to the appellants. The minimum consequence of denial of cross examination in these circumstances is that the statement of the persons whose cross examination was sought but was denied have to be ignored. We find that the primary adjudicating authority cam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
