TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (6) TMI 415
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al is against the Commissioner's order demanding differential duty of over Rs. 37 lakhs on Medium Density Fibre Boards (MDF Boards, for short) imported by the appellants from M/s. Green Panel Products (M) SDN BHD, Malaysia, and cleared under 19 Bills of Entry through the Chennai Seaport, holding the said goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act and imposing a penalty equal to duty on the appellants under Section 114A of the Act. The total declared assessable value of the goods was Rs. 1,45,31,436/- which was enhanced to Rs. 2,51,82,316/- by the Commissioner for the purpose of the above differential duty demand. After the clearance of the goods by the party on payment of duty on the declared assessable value, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade payment of duty and proposing to recover differential duty as also to impose penalty, apart from confiscation of the goods. In his interim reply to this notice, Shri Jain prayed for an opportunity for cross-examining some unidentified persons including all those officers of DRI who were associated with the investigations and all those persons who were associated with the transactions mentioned in Shri Sathyanarayana's statement against Shri Jain as also persons associated with the e-mail dated 19-4-2006 relied on in the show-cause notice. The adjudicating authority, however, declined permission to cross-examine any of these persons on the ground that Shri Jain himself had admitted his offence in his statement dated 9-8-2006. It appears,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive of the manner in which the DRI would handle him. According to the learned Counsel, these were the circumstances in which the appellant was forced into giving the statements dated 8-8-2006 and 9-8-2006. The learned Counsel has made particular reference to the statement dated 9-8-2006. It is submitted that, in this statement, Shri Jain was forced to corroborate the averments made by Shri Sathyanarayana as also to furnish a list of specific particulars such as Bill of Entry No. & Date, Quantity of Import, Declared Value and Actual Value of Goods as dictated by the DRI officials. All these Bills of Entry were in DRI's custody and therefore, by any stretch of imagination, the appellant could not have furnished such particulars to mathematica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed certain accounts (which indicated collection of higher price from the appellant by the Malaysian seller through Shri Sathyanarayana) and an e-mail (which was addressed to Shri Sathyanarayana by one Shri Rajesh of the Malaysian supplier). With the death of Shri Sathyanarayana, the affected party, namely, the appellant is legitimately in search of somebody to disprove the incriminating statement of Shri Sathyanarayana and the incriminating documents recovered from his laptop. In other words, the appellant looks forward to cross-examination of somebody, who is yet to be named by them. The fact remains that cross-examination was disallowed by the Commissioner. Again, it is the appellant's grievance (the veracity of which cannot be ruled out ....