TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment was of the view that the value declared in the invoice and bill of entry was US $ 260 per metric tonne cif was far too low, in view of the report of test furnished by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT for short), Bombay, which, after testing the goods found them to be silicon steel electrical grade and also not to be defective. The notice issued to the importer proposed to enhance the value to US $ 1085 per metric tonne cif based on the imports of silicon steel electrical grade by M/s. Electra India at Bombay. In reply to the notice, the importer disputed the correctness of the test carried out by the IIT, Bombay which concluded that the goods were electrical grade and wished to cross-examine Professor B.T. Rao, who has signed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t does not go into this aspect. However, the percentage of carbon mentioned therein is significantly higher than the percentage mentioned in sub-heading (1)(c) of Chapter 72 of the tariff at the relevant time of silicon electrical steel. This note indicates silicon electrical stage to be alloy steel containing by weight at least 0.6% but not more than 6% of silicon and not more than 0.8% of carbon. While this note is admittedly on for the purpose of tariff classification, it, in our view, gives some indication that the goods is electrical steel. 4. There is another aspect of the matter. Appellant, in its letter of 3-10-1992, had asked for cross-examination of Professor B.T. Rao who had issued the certificate of the IIT, Bombay. It was con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the departmental proceedings in which he cites the judgment of the learned single judge of the Calcutta High Court in Tapankumar Biswas v. Union of India 1996 (63) ECR 546. It is not really necessary for us to go into this aspect. The Collector has himself not denied the appellant the right to cross-examine Dr. Rao. It was in reply to a summons asking him to appear for cross-examination, that Dr. Rao declined to appear. The judgment of the single judge of the Calcutta High Court has no authority for saying that where a request for the cross-examination has been accepted but the person summoned for cross-examination does not appear, the document on which he has to be cross-examined is admissible as evidence without such cross-examination. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
