TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 728
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shall make appropriate application for fixing hearing by the Authority on any working day in the month of January 2018 and hearing the appellant, learned Authority shall pass appropriate order within three months of the last date of hearing. 3. At this stage, learned DR says that submission of Revenue made in the written submissions filed may be recorded so that the Authority shall get opportunity to go through that and relevant evidence before passing the order in readjudication. There is no difference to this proposition of learned DR and the Adjudicating Authority shall do the needful considering the submissions of Revenue as extracted below:- 1. Based on intelligence that high value drug was being smuggled misdeclaring it as Epoxy Resin, a consignment of 27 kg of M/s Raj Associates was detained by Customs on 19.12.2004 and examined. Investigations revealed that M/s Raj Associates was a fake IEC in whose name the bill of entry existed and its proprietor was Anugandhi Nadar. However imports were found to have been made at the behest of Kirit Dhruv. Samples of the detained consignment were tested and found to be Dexamethasone Sodium Phosphate. It was also reveale....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver the import documents which he would pass on to Gajendra Dolas for handing over to the CHA. He would also make draft to pay customs duty and hand it over to Gajendra Dolas. He was getting Rs. 1500 to 2000 per consignment from Nadar. 20,000/ 50,000/- 4 Gajendra Dolas The Delivery Boy - He was the link between the CHA and the Importer. He would deliver the import documents to the CHA along with the Demand draft for payment of duty. Further he would also carry the customs cleared consignment and hand it over to Joseph Fernandes. He used to get Rs. 1000/- to 1500 per month from Fernandes. 20,000/- 50,000/- 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant had argued that no evidence was recovered from the premises of Kirit Dhruv. However the overwhelming evidences which has come to light during the course of investigation and which has been brought out in the show cause notice and order in original has remained unrefuted and no explanation what so ever has been offered in respect of these evidences. Apart from the inculpatory statement of Anugandhi Nadar, various circumstantial evidences were also brought on record which substantiates the case of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learly proves that Anugandhi Nadar was working for Kirit Dhruv. H. Past Association of Kirit Dhruv and Anugandhi Nadar came to record. They were involved in smuggling pharmaceutical products in the guise of foodstuffs from airport. Kirit Dhruv also approached Settlement Commission along with Anuganshi Nadar as co-applicant. Both their applications were rejected by Settlement Commission. I. Kirit Dhruv is a repeated offender. He was earlier arrested by Enforcement Directorate in a FERA case. His refusal to come out with clean hands itself is a proof of his guilt. J. Throughout the investigation, Kirit Dhruv refused to cooperate with the investigation. For months he avoided attending to summons and when he finally attended investigation he gave frivolous and evasive answers and refused to submit vital documents. His conduct in itself is a proof of his guilty mind. 6. Kirit Dhruv was the mastermind of the entire smuggling racket and the goods were actually imported on his behalf and he gained from selling them in the local market evading duty of Rs. 3 crores clearly justifies the penalty of Rs. 40,000 and Rs. 50,00,000/- imposed on him. The st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Customs Act, but also on the basis of various circumstantial evidences which were brought out in the show cause notices issued to him. Therefore, the appellant had enough opportunity to defend himself and there has been no breach of natural justice. Further, in a number of judgements it has been held that the principles of natural justice do not require that in matters like this the persons who have given information should be examined in the presence of the appellant or should be allowed to be cross-examined by them on the statements made before the Customs Authorities. Reliance is place of following judgements a) Kanungo & Co. vs. Collector of Customs and Others reported in 1983 (13) ELT. 1486 (SC) b) Gyan Chand Sant Lal Jain reported in 2001(136) ELT. 9 (Bom.). c) Sudhir Sharma vs. Commissioner of Customs reported in 2011(265) ELT 243 (Tri-Del) upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported in 2015 (319) ELT 450 (Del). 10. As far as retraction of the statement of Anugandhi Nadar is concerned, it is submitted that it is nothing but an afterthought. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in various judgements that even if a statement is ret....