TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 561
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... evade payment of appropriate customs duty. Thereafter, the Officers of the D.R.I., searched the premises of the petitioner-company on 20-6-2007 and recovered two hard discs from the two Personal Computers under a Mahazar. The hard discs were sent to Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD), Hyderabad for forensic analysis. The analysis report was received vide letter dated 31-8-2007 from the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Hyderabad. The said report revealed that the petitioner had resorted to misdeclaration of the value of the imported goods (self-adhesive tapes) by preparing second set of invoice, which was recovered from the hard discs seized from the petitioner concern. It was also found that the original invoice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the respondent. I have also gone through the documents including the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the rejection of the request made by the petitioner for cross-examination of Government Examiner of Questioned Documents and the persons who retrieved the data from the two hard discs seized from the Personal Computers belonged to the petitioner concern, is illegal and liable to be interfered with by this Court. Moreover, when the show cause notice heavily relies on GEQD report to sustain the allegations set out in the show cause notice, the cross-examination as sought for by the petitioner in the interim reply ought to have been allowed. Further, according to him, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....verseas v. Collector of Customs) (8) 2001 (129) E.L.T. 654 (Tri.-Mum) [Carrara Marble & Granite Industries v. Commissioner of Customs (EP), Mumbai)] (9) 2001 (129) E.L.T. 701 (Tri.-Del) (Rathi Ispat Ltd. v. Commissioner of CEx, Meerut) The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied heavily on the unreported judgment dated 24-6-2005 made in a batch matters in W.P. Nos. 18918 of 2000, etc. to reiterate the fact that when a request for cross-examination was made even at the stage of submitting an explanation to the show cause notice, should be entertained, as it would only be in compliance with the fundamental principles of natural justice and criminal jurisprudence. Therefore, he submits that rejection of the request made by the pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fect the interest of the petitioner or the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the statements were recorded by the DRI officials under Sec. 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the same have not been retracted by the petitioner at any stage. He further adds that the officer of GEQD could not be made available for cross-examination since he has proceeded on long leave and also he has already been relieved from Forensic Department, Hyderabad. He further submits that any order passed by the respondent-authority under the Customs Act, 1962 is amenable to an appeal remedy under the said Act before the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petition has been filed without exha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssions carefully with regard to facts and citations. 8. It is a case of the petitioner that on the investigation made by the officers from DRI that adhesive tapes imported by the petitioner concern have been undervalued and proceedings were initiated under the Customs Act against the petitioner concern. While sending this show cause notice, the materials relied upon by the respondent were sent along with the show cause notice. While replying to the show cause notice, the petitioner stated that certain materials retrieved from the hard discs of the Personal Computers belonged to the petitioner were not in consonance with the data available with the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner in reply to the show cause notice, made a request to th....