2020 (10) TMI 72

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ommon Order-in- Original dated 20.10.2017 imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,44,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 being equivalent to the seized Bangladesh Currency - Taka amounting to Rs. 8,00,000/- (convertible Indian Currency of Rs. 5,44,000/-). On appeal, the learned Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the adjudication order and rejected the appeal before him. Hence the present appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Shri Debaditya Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant reiterated the grounds of appeal and filed a Written Submission along with some relied upon decisions. The learned Advocate submitted that the present case has emanated from the statement of Shri Manoj Roy, who was intercepted by the BSF and Bangladesh c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cation and/or the appellant having acted in any manner which shows involvement of the appellant towards the alleged offence. 3. Shri A.K.Singh, Learned Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the respondent Revenue justified the impugned orders and further submitted that there is no merit in the appeal and is fit to be dismissed. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. I find that the appellant's statement was recorded in terms of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 during the course of enquiry wherein he had duly stated that neither he knows the said person Shri Manoj Roy nor he had ever asked anybody to carry the Bangladesh currency in any manner whatsoever. It is also observed that the person Shri Manoj Roy wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce because of which the appellant was adversely affected. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced :- "6. According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissioner was based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the assessee disputed the correctness of the statements and wanted to cross-examine, the Adjudicating Authority did not ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2216 of 2000, order dated 17-3-2005 [2005 (187) E.L.T. A33 (S.C.)] was passed remitting the case back to the Tribunal with the directions to decide the appeal on merits giving its reasons for accepting or rejecting the submissions. 8. In view the above, we are of the opinion that if the testimony of these two witnesses is discredited, there was no material with the Department on the basis of which it could justify its action, as the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses was the only basis of issuing the show cause notice." 7. In view of the above discus....