Back
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Dilip Gupta, President, Hemambika R. Priya, Technical Member
S M Trading – Appellant
Versus
Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeals against confiscation due to undervaluation lead to scrutiny of statements. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. allegations hinging on email printouts require procedural soundness for evidential admission. (Para 4 , 19) |
| 3. necessary adjudicative procedures for evaluating witness statements must be followed. (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 4. court delineates foundational procedural safeguards for using statements as evidence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. failure to adhere to statutory evidence procedures renders findings unsustainable. (Para 21 , 22) |
JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA: Customs Appeal No. 50491 of 2021 has been filed by S.M.
Trading to assail that portion of the order dated October 28, 2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs that orders confiscation of the imported goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine. The declared value of the goods has been rejected under rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, the 2007 Valuation Rules read with section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and re-determined under rule 3. Penalties under sections 112(a), 114A and 114AA of the , the Customs Act have also been imposed upon S.M. Trading.
2
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
