Reliance on retracted Statements, Documents retrieved from Computer without following due procedure is invalid: CESTAT [Read Order]

Reliance on retracted statements, documents retrieved from computer without following due procedure is invalid, so was held by Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai.

The appellants, M/s Jeen Bhavani International and Mahesh Chandra Sharma Kartaimported 63 consignments of Linen Yarn, Ramie Yarn and other misc. items from various overseas suppliers, based in China; during the period between 01.08.2014 and 10.11.2016, the appellant filed bills of entry classifying the said goods under CTH 53061090 and 53089010; goods were assessed by the department and ordered for clearance of the same for home consumption, in terms of Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962.

On the basis of specific information received, indicating that the appellant indulged in gross under valuation of the imported goods, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Zonal Unit, Surat conducted a detailed investigation into the matter.

Department issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) proposing rejection of the declared value of goods in terms of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Prices of the imported goods) Rules, 2007; re-determination of the same under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rules 3(1) and 10(1)(e) of CVR, 2007; confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) Customs Act, 1962; recovery of the differential customs duty along with interest in terms of Section 28(4) and 28AA ibid respectively and imposition of penaltieson the appellants and other persons/entities under Sections 112(a), 112(b), 114A, 114AA and 117.

Nisha Bineesh, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that other than the contents in the Panchanama, the department has not relied upon any substantial evidence in the form of documents or otherwise to strengthen the case of Revenue in support of under-valuation of goods and subsequent confirmation of the adjudged demands on the appellants.

The Counsel also submitted that the statutory requirements have not been complied with by the department inasmuch as the important aspects regarding the year of manufacture of the computer, model number, the exact location of the premise where the same waskept and more importantly, the statement was not recorded from the person, who operated the same, were not discussed by the lower authorities and further, there is no whisper in the Panchanama with regard to description of CPU, the location in the searched premises where it was installed and the manner in which it was seized.

The Bench consisting of S K Mohanty, Judicial Member and P Anjani Kumar, Technical Member held that “it is evident that none of the evidences relied upon by the department, to allege the under valuation resorted to by the appellants, stand the scrutiny of Law. We find that department reliance on retracted statements, documents retrieved from computer without following due procedure as per law and the arguments on the basis of insurance policies which as per our discussion above fall flat.”

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates