TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 767
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rolled Stainless - Steel Coils Grade 410S/Magnetic Stainless Steel Cold Rolled Coil Grade 410S from Malaysia and declared to be of Malaysian Origin, were in fact, of Chinese Origin and were routed through Malaysia to wrongly avail the benefit of preferential duty and other applicable duties, on the said items, at the time of import. 1.2 Acting on the said information searches at the office -cum-godown premises of Appellant were conducted. Statement of Mr. Sanjay Jain and Mr.Gugan Kumar, Proprietor of M/s G.K. Enterprises was recorded. The investigation revealed that Appellant had imported the goods from Malaysia under the fake invoices availed the benefit of the Notification No. 46/2011- Customs dtd. 01.06.2011. The certificate of Origin submitted by the appellant were not genuine. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 22-2- 2013 was issued to the appellant proposing denial of the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dtd. 01.06.2011, confiscation of goods, demand of Customs duty along with interest and penalty.In adjudication, Ld. Commissioner vide impugned order rejected the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011 -Cus and confirmed the duty demand along with interest and penalty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the goods were of Chinese Origin. No investigation was carried out at the end of the Malaysian Company. No inquiry/ verification of Certificate of Origin was made at MIIT (the authority of Malaysia who had issued certificate of origin). No inquiry was made at the end of the company who has done fumigation of the goods in Malaysia, issued Mill Inspection certificate in regards to the goods, issued Bill of Lading from Malaysia etc. 2.2 As regard the statement of Shri Gugan Kumar, proprietor of Appellant, he submits that in the whole statement it was clear that the goods were of Malaysia Origin only. At one place, he wanted to say that other people in Delhi are doing unscrupulous activity of receiving goods originating from China through Malaysia route, however he was not doing the same. But the DRI officer had typed the statement differently. Initially, this was not realized by the Appellant. However, immediately on realizing the same, an affidavit explaining the same is submitted by the appellant with this appeal memo. 2.3 He argued that in the aforesaid circumstances, the allegations levelled against the Appellant cannot be believed. The statement of Shri Sanjay Jain requires ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ablish that the impugned goods are Malaysia Origin. 4.1 We also noticed that in the disputed matter the Revenue without getting confirmation from the Malaysia Government about their doubt of authenticity of the country of origin certificate and activity of respective suppliers of the goods proceeded to deny the benefit in respect of COOs issued by Supplier to the appellant is not genuine and consequently denied Exemption Notification No. 46/2011, dated 1-6-2011 and consequential demand was confirmed. We find that as per the documents submitted by the appellants it appears that there is no doubt on the authenticity of the documents. At the time of import the Customs department had also examined the goods and all the documents and officers of customs was fully satisfied that Malaysian Origin goods were imported from Malayasia, they had not objected to the imports. However, to clear any doubt it is the burden on the department to get the verification from the Malaysia Government regarding authenticity of Certificate of origin and activity of supplier who supplied the goods to the Appellant which has not been discharged by the department in the present matter. 4.2 In the present matt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2015 (330) E.L.T. 74 (Mad.) has observed as under :- '8. While considering the value of cross-examination, the Apex Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan's case (cited supra) held thus : "Cross-examination is one part of the principles of natural justice : 23. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of M.P. v. Chintaman Sadashiva Vaishampayan, AIR 1961 SC 1623, held that the rules of natural justice, require that a party must be given the opportunity to adduce all relevant evidence upon which he relies, and further that, the evidence of the opposite party should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party. Not providing the said opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, would violate the principles of natural justice." A mere reading of the above said proposition clearly shows that the rules of natural justice require that a party must be given an opportunity to adduce all relevant evidence upon which he relies and further that the evidence of the opposite party should be taken in his presence by giving an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party. In the prese....