Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1516 - AT - CustomsScope afforded by Customs Act, 1962 for disposition of amounts deposited by noticees during investigations into misdeclaration of imported goods and re-determination of value of imported goods merely on the support of statements - short payment of duty - penalty. Held that: - There can be discounting of conscience among the good denizens of a nation and it is well within the realms of rational reality that importers may, of their own volition, come forward to pay duty that was short-levied without waiting for a demand under Section 28 or seizure of offending goods under Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962. Unfortunately, the temporal facet of the legislature shies away from foraying into the spiritual domain to acknowledge, by a special provision, a special enabler for conscience in duty collection. And that gap has ensured that there is no legal sanctity to voluntary payment of duty during the pendency of investigation. Such provisions do exist in Central Excise law and Finance Act, 1994; as yet, such does not under Customs Act, 1962 because, unlike the other two laws, each transaction is discrete and separate with no registration or status as ‘assessee’ or ‘importer’ except during the pendency of a consignment for clearance. Assessment is not an exercise in value judgment, serendipitous divination or inspired revelation. Specific Rules have been notified to ensure consistency and objectivity. These Rules are the distillate of experiences and wisdom of, not just a people but, peoples. Non-acquiescence of the propriety and sanctity of the Rules is to betray an ignorance or obduracy that does no credit to the organizational commitment to professionalism. Valiantly attempting to assure that the impugned order is legal and proper, learned Authorized Representative contends that no such error has been committed. It would appear that Revenue prefers to ignore the test of relevancy of statements in Section 138B(2) of Customs Act, 1962 as it applies to adjudication proceedings; the truth of any statement that has not the support of any other corroborative evidence is ascertainable only when the authority concerned admits that as evidence after examining the deponent as a witness. The statements recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962, purportedly admitting to undervaluation, has, apparently, elicited the prevailing price and also essayed the manner in which the additional consideration has been routed to suppliers. These are valuable inputs acquire sanctity only in the tempering heat of challenge and survival. Credibility is accorded only in cross-examination which, though demanded by appellant at the adjudication stage, was refused on the ground that there was no need to do so. Indubitably, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been interpreted to accord evidentiary value to statements recorded by officers of Customs in contradistinction to that recorded before police officers. That, however, is no claim to infallibility or imposition in the absence of corroboration. The lack thereof requires rectification by the original authority - the matter to be heard afresh with opportunity afforded to noticees for cross-examination of deponents - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|