Penalty for alleged duty evasion set aside where cross-examination was allowed and duty had already been paid.

Penalty for alleged excess clearance without payment of duty was found unsustainable where the assessee had been afforded opportunities in the proceedings, including a hearing at which a witness was cross-examined, and counsel had sought closure of the matter. The objection based on denial of cross-examination and breach of natural justice was treated as weak on the record. As the duty had already been paid and the duty involved was comparatively small, the focus remained on the propriety of imposing penalty. The penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed for alleged excess clearance without payment of duty should be sustained in the facts and circumstances, including the grievance regarding denial of cross-examination and the extent of opportunity afforded to the assessee.

Analysis: The record indicated that the assessee had been given opportunities in the proceedings, including a hearing at which a witness was cross-examined, and the assessee's counsel had sought closure of the matter. The challenge based on violation of natural justice was therefore found to carry little force. At the same time, the duty amount had already been paid and the total duty involved was comparatively small. In these circumstances, the focus of the adjudication was confined to the propriety of the penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty was not justified and was set aside.

---