Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2017 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1571 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTImposition of Safeguard Duty - N/N. 71/2009 dated 19.6.2009 - justification for imposition of Safeguard Duty when the manufactures certificate reflected 6 microns as the thickness at the time of export recognizing the concept of transaction value as per provision of section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with WTO Valuation Agreement (Earlier GATT Valuation Code) - Cross-examination of witnesses sought at appellate stage - whether the cross-examination as sought could be allowed? - Held that:- Before proceeding with the matter, it will not be out of place to mention that on the cross examination, it is right of the assessee and such request should be made at the very first opportunity when it is available i.e. before adjudicating authority and not after adjudicating authority accepts the report and decides the matter against the assessee - The cross examination or request for referring the matter to the expert laboratory should be made at the very first time and if such request is made then only the laboratory should decide thickness, quality after physical verification of the product. However, such request cannot be made the appellate stage. In the present case, if the appellant would have made such request at the first stage then it could have been open for the authority to send the product for further examination at the cost of the appellant. However, in the present case, no such request was made and therefore, the authorities upto the tribunal have correctly accepted the report of Shriram Institute. Reference to Tolerance Limit - Whether non grant of tolerance limit factor in the micron calculation as fixed by BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards) makes the report unreliable specially when there are contradictory results of highest order in the different reports? - Held that:- Benefit of tolerance limit cannot be granted to the appellant and the liability of duty is ascertained as per actual thickness of the product. Personal penalty U/S 114A of CA - Held that:- The appellant has bonafidely imported products pursuant to the invoices which were received from the manufacturer. In that view of the matter, for penalty we are of the opinion that present case being the first instance for mis-declaration on part of the appellant, we absolve appellant from penalty and personal penalty - penalty waived. Appeal dismissed.
|