9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1034X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 19.06.2018 also requested for next date of hearing, whereby he was granted another opportunity of personal hearing on 18.07.2018 but even on that date none appeared on behalf of the appellant. It also appears from the record that the appellant had not submitted any reply to the show cause notice. However, learned Authorised Representative and also the Counsel for the appellant agreed that the matter could be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for denovo proceedings, so that the appellant gets an opportunity to cross-examine Sh. Rohit Gupta, and also submit the documents as called for by the Department. The present appeal is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue afresh by granting an oppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequently Sh. Manish Arora, Authorised Representative of the appellant appeared on 04.08.2017, when the samples of the goods were examined in his presence alongwith officials of Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC). As per the report dated 04.08.2017 of AEPC the stitching and finishing of the goods was poor and untidy and goods were found to be sub-standard and therefore the FOB was found to be highly overvalued. The goods under export having declared value of Rs. 3,53,94,948.07 and drawback claimed Rs.34,68,706.93 were placed under seizure vide seizure memo dt. 10.08.2017. 4. The exporter was asked to submit the purchase invoice of the goods under export, details of payments made to the supplier, details of previous export made an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Customs vide Order-in-original dated 24.10.2018 confirmed the demand which has been affirmed in the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and also learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and have perused the records of the case. 7. The foremost contention of the appellant is that there is no basis to arrive at the conclusion of overvaluation. Further, he has not been provided with the relied upon documents and have not been granted opportunity to cross-examine Sh. Rohit Gupta on whose evidence the valuation has been determined against the appellant. He has also submitted that valuation cannot be determined on the basis of visual examination and therefore the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
