TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 957
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 14th December 2007 of Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai - II. 2. The appellant-company is a licenced 'custom house agent (CHA)' and was held to have been involved in the diversion of 'nonmagnetic stainless steel/coil', imported without payment of duties of customs against 25 advance licences under the 'duty exemption entitlement certificate (DEEC)' scheme of the Foreign Trade Policy, while acting for M/s Chanakya Impex after procurement on 'high-seasale' basis. From the records it is seen that during search of the common premises of M/s Kanakratna Steel and M/s Sun Impex and that of M/s Reliance Stainless Steel, the other parties in the 'high sea sales' transactions, 28 packages valued at Rs.20,00,000/- and one package valued....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he contends that the final disposition of the consignment had nothing to do with the appellants and that mere implementation of instructions from their clients for movement of cargo to the weighbridge at Kalamboli from the port as well as facilitating payments made to transporters as intermediary did not constitute involvement in the alleged diversion. Learned Counsel also informs that proceedings under the relevant Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR) which culminated in revocation of their licence by the competent authority had been set aside by the Tribunal on appeal. He further informs that the findings against the appellants in the impugned order are very sketchy with no evidence available for arriving at those conclusion....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oms (AIR), Chennai v. A P Pinherio [2014 (306) ELT 349 (Mad.)]. 5. The appellant-company is an artificial person, separate and independent from the appellant-Director. Proceedings had been initiated against the appellant-company under relevant Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations for alleged breach of obligations prescribed in the said Regulations and, consequent upon appeal, the revocation of licence was quashed. Considering the nature of the allegations sustained in the impugned order and harped upon by Learned Authorized Representative, it would appear that these are acts of omission and commission that only a natural person was capable of and are also not activities related to the functioning of the appellant-company as a custom ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....incipal noticee in the proceedings. Being a co-noticee, and even if sought to be cross examined, permitting such confrontation during adjudication would have been legally improper. It would have been more appropriate for these statements of Mr Mohan Shah to have been used for confronting the appellant-Director when he was subject to interrogation under section 108 of Customs Act 1962. There is no evidence of that; nor is there any record of such ascertainment having taken place. Accordingly, the statements of Mr Mohan Shah fails the test of relevancy prescribed in section 138B of Customs Act, 1962. It is seen from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in re Naresh J Sukhwani that the statement of a co-accused was pressed into service in....