TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 260
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llows: Based upon the intelligence with the officers of DRI that two containers bearing Nos. OOLU8554789 and OOLU8804131 being imported in the name of M/s. Kirat Sales under the Bill of Lading No.OOLU202310117000 dated 4.8.2016 were examined by the said DRI officers at ICD Tughlakabad, New Delhi under Panchnama dated 05/06.09.2016. On examination, both the containers were found to contain Chinese Origin firecrackers concealed behind the declared goods i.e. bicycle parts. The said firecrackers were seized under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 under Seizure Memo dated 01.03.2017. During the investigation DRI searched various premises including the premises of M/s. Krishna Clearing and Forwarding Agency, the proprietor whereof is the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on behalf of the appellant that appellant is a small time Ludhiana based CHA. The allegations of abatement in smuggling of prohibited goods by providing IEC of M/s. Kirat Sales has wrongly been alleged against the appellant. Learned Counsel has mentioned that there is no tangible and cogent evidence against the appellant found in the investigations. It is submitted that the statement of Shri Purashottam and Shri Ajay Sagar have been blindly relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority despite that they had no role with the subject consignment. There is no apparent reason disclosed by the investigating agency about recording their statements. It is submitted that the act of mis-declaration was actually arrangement between the said Shri Ajay Sag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 5.4 of the Order under challenge. The decision in the case of M/s. Switchgear Engg Laboratories vs CCE in C/57570/2019 decided on 15.11.2021 has been relied upon. While acknowledging that the impugned Show Cause Notice was issued by the officers of DRI, the applicability of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Canon India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs reported as [2021 SCC 200 (SC)] is denied. With these submissions appeal in hand is prayed to be dismissed. 5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the entire record, it is observed and held as follows: The consignment in the present case was intercepted at the stage prior to gate customs clearance. The basic document available at that stage was the bill of lading No. 00L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....M/s. Rahul Traders which would be pending for clearance. The appellant was shown the panchnama of 5/6.9.2016 whereupon he endorsed his signatures, acknowledging that instead of bicycle parts of Chinese origin fire crackers were found in those consignments. 8. Despite being inquired from the appellant Shri Rahul Sehgal denied importing the firecrackers in the consignment declared for bicycle parts pending clearance at ICD, TKD. 9. Following are the statements in evidence on record: (i) Statement of Shri Manish Srivastava, Deputy Manager (Imports) Orient Overseas Line India Pvt Ltd. He deposed : a. The procedure for booking the consignment in respect of imports of goods into India from Chennai requires the submission of relevant data i.e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irat Sales: a. He obtained the IEC code to import bicycle parts from China. 15 consignments have been imported till date. All cleared from ICD Ludhiana. b. The main supplier in China are Hebei Bicycle Guangfeng Co. Ltd. and Guangfeng Fine Industrial Co. Ltd. Initially their CHA was Shri Jaswinder Singh of Unique International since June, 2015, i.e. for last year Shri Harish Goyal of M/s. Krishna Clearing and Forwarding, the appellant was working as CHA. c. M/s. Kirat Sales never imported firecracker in their firm. d. The supplier in Bill of Lading is Shenzhen Xin Huayi International Trading Co. Ltd. from whom Shri Jaskirat has never imported bicycle parts. e. For clearance of consignment KYC documents of firm were required which w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uired information was found to have no relevance with Rahul Traders. These depositions are sufficiently corroborating the allegations against the appellant. Not only this, the facts admitted by the appellant corroborates the deposition of these witnesses. Hence I am of the opinion that no illegality has been committed when witnesses have not been cross examined by the appellant. Otherwise also there has been no requests of the appellant for the cross examination of such witnesses based whereupon the Adjudicating Authority issued the order. Since appellant is found to have admitted his involvement, the admissions are best evidence which need no proof in terms of section 52 of Indian Evidence Act. The appellants admission that he was the Cust....