The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the reliance by the customs department on chartered engineer’s certificate without cross-examination violates natural justice.
The bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and C J Mathew (Technical Member) has observed that the same officer continues to hold the office of the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Surat-II. It would therefore be not necessary to separately hear the petition once again before passing any such order. This would, however, not preclude the Commissioner from requiring the petitioners to show relevance for seeking cross-examination of the witnesses.
The appellant has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai and is one of the several series of imports that were taken up for investigation for mis- declaration of value of ‘used cranes’ in which, purportedly and in tune with ‘standard operating procedure’ for assessment, the declarations of value were computed from the weight thereof and standard unit rate. It is in circumstances of similar dispute that the imports of 26 cranes effected by M/s Harvinder & Co directly and four on ‘high sea sales’ original procured by M/s Auto World against 16 bills of entry between May 2006 and March 2007 and 14 bills of entry between April 2007 and January 2008 were subjected to proceedings that are challenged.
The investigation, relying upon value provided by independent chartered engineer, proposed rejection of declared value of ₹ 3,30,27,101 in the 30 consignment for re-determination as ₹ 7,00,84,564 and confiscation under section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 along with recovery of short-paid duty of ₹ 48,22,659 from M/s Harvinder & Co without touching upon recovery of ₹ 75,71,549 for the period prior to April 2012. The recourse to relevant Rules notified under section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 for rejection of declared value and consequent re-determination, in terms of rule 8 under the erstwhile Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 and rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 respectively for confirming duty liability under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962, along with appropriate interest under section 28AA of Customs Act, 1962, besides imposition of penalties, is assailed in the appeals.
Dr. Sujay Kantawala, the counsel for the appellant contended that that the show cause notice issued on 30th May 2012 had wrongly invoked the recovery provision in relation to imports effected by them without any justification offered for inclusion of the extended period of limitation. It was also contended that, though re-valuation was based upon the certificate of Chartered Engineer, their plea for cross-examination of the certifying authority was rejected peremptorily.
The CESTAT while setting aside the order held that fastening liability to duty and other detriments by relying only on the certificate of Chartered Engineer without subjecting the said person to cross-examination is blatant violation of principle of natural justice.
Case Details
Case Title: Harvinder & Co Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case No.: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 85467 OF 2014
Date: 25/09/2025
Counsel For Appellant: Dr. Sujay Kantawala and Ms Aishwarya Kantawala, Advocates
Counsel For Respondent: Ram Kumar, Assistant Commissioner (AR)
