TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 178
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ief facts of the case is that M/s Rodex International, KASEZ, Gandhidham had filed a Bill of Entry No. 1296 dtd. 02.02.2011 before KASEZ, Gandhidham for the import of a total of 73 packages, including 28 refrigerators and 41 LCD/Plasma TVs. On the basis of intelligence, the officers of DRI detected and seized 28580 pieces of memory cards found to be concealed at the back portion of 4 refrigerators from the container. Shri Dilip Dhakan, partner of M/s. Rodex International, in his statement dtd. 03.02.2011, admitted that they had not declared the 28580 pieces of memory cards in the said bill of entry and also stated that his friend Shri Lilaram Asudani, had persuaded him to smuggle the memory cards by concealing them in the import cargo, on f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submits that the impugned order violated the principles of natural justice as the adjudicating authority has not considered the request for cross-examination. The Appellants had requested for cross-examination of the witnesses whose statements have been relied upon in sustaining the allegations against the appellant. 2.1 He also submits that the penalty has been imposed on appellant only because the appellant had been alleged to be the person behind the import. For imposition of penalty under Section 114, some degree of involvement or knowledge of contravention on the part of the abettor must be shown. In the impugned order no evidence direct or even indirect has been adduced to show that the appellant has some knowledge of contravention ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wned by the appellant and on the other hand he approached the judicial forum for taking release of the seized goods. The adjudicating authority has allowed the release of the said goods under seizure to the importer. Thus the entire conduct of the importer is dubious and has implicated the appellant for ulterior reason. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) Debu Saha Vs. Collector of Customs (Preventive)- 1992(59)ELT 442 (Tribunal) (ii) Raj Television Networks Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai -2007(215)ELT 71 (Tri. Chennai) 2.4 He also submits that mere forwarding of certain documents by his employee can not be ground for imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the said Act. The Ld. Adjudicating authority has al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t on the part of the appellant. The Bill of Entry had been filed by M/s Rodex International. 4.1 We further find that Ld. Adjudicating authority also not considered the request of appellants for cross-examination of witnesses. We find that persons are not examined in the adjudication proceedings and as such their statements are not admissible, as evidence under the provisions of Section 138B of Customs Act, which provides that - if an authority in any proceedings under the Act wants to rely upon the statement of any person (made during enquiry), such person is required to be examined as witness and if the adjudicating authority finds the evidence of the witness 'admissible', then such witness should be offered for cross-examination and onl....