TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (11) TMI 335
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted by the appellant attract Anti-Dumping Duty (hereinafter referred to as "ADD") and the ADD is leviable based on the net weight of the consignment imported by the appellant. The appellant had mis-declared the net weight of the consignment as 8350 Kgs in the B.E. No. 446476, dated 6-10-2008 as against the actual net weight of 18989 Kgs ascertained by the DRI. The above said misdeclaration was evident from the appellant's averment that he has paid Rs. 19.55 lakhs as ADD meant for 18989 Kgs. Therefore, the appellant was found to have evaded payment of ADD to the tune of Rs. 1,57,82,914/- as worked out in respect of their import of goods under 12 Bills of Entry listed in the show cause notice dated 8-4-2009 issued by the DRI, Tuticorin ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant advanced two fold submissions. Firstly, when there has been a violation of principles of natural justice, existence of alternative appeal remedy will not be a bar for invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1998 (8) SCC .... (sic) Secondly, it was contended that the respondent, while passing the impugned order, rejected the case of the appellant, even without giving an opportunity for cross-examining the purported sources of the material evidence b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unity to cross-examine the witnesses, would not violate the principles of natural justice. Further, it was held that the Customs Officials are not Police Officers, therefore, the confession, though retracted is an admission and very well binds the person concerned and on that basis, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. The appellant herein has mis-declared the net weight of his consignment imported through Tuticorin Port as 8350 Kgs in the B.E. No. 446476, dated 6-10-2008 as against the actual net weight of 18989 Kgs ascertained by the DRI. The misdeclaration of the net weight made by the appellant was self-evident from his averment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....D was calculated based on the weight ascertained from the samples submitted by the appellant. Therefore, there is no reason to give an opportunity to the importer to cross-examine the persons and the question of giving an opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine the persons will not arise in this case, as it is not the violation of principles of natural justice as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Surjeet Singh Chhabra's case (supra), wherein, it has been vividly held that the failure to give him an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses is not violation of principles of natural justice. 9. Further, we have also gone through the voluntary statement dated 20-11-2008 made by the appellant under Section 108 of the Customs Act,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cross-examination can be taken away. In yet another case, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 646 (S.C.), has again held that when the petitioner seeks for cross-examination of witnesses, who have said that the recovery was made from the petitioner, necessarily an opportunity required to be given for the cross-examination of witnesses as regards the place at which recovery was made. But, in view of confession made by the petitioner, the same was binding upon him and therefore, in such facts and circumstances, failure to give him opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses would not violate the principles of natural justice. Further, it was held that the Customs Officials ....