TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 749
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other High Courts held that cross-examination in quasi-judicial proceedings is not a matter of right and decision regarding the grant of cross-examination is to be arrived by the adjudicating authority depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Relying upon various judgements, the Commissioner in the impugned order acceded for cross-examination of one of the officers and rejected cross-examination of all other officers including cross-examination of the Shri Ganapathy Iyer, Managing Partner and Shri Kasim Kunju, staff of M/s. Krishna Brothers, Shri N.S. Mahesh of M/s. MM International. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant is in appeal before us. 4. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant was falsely implicated, the quantity and the values that have been relied upon are not in order and he was not a signatory to the invoices or the inventories drawn by the officers. He submits that the Preventive Officer was the person who arrested the appellant and he had complained against the said witness alleging torture and harassment and it is necessary to cross-examine hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....III: 2019 (368) ELT 835 (Bom.) 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. The appellant was issued with the show-cause notice dated 31.03.2015 under Section 28 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 alleging undervaluation of the goods imported based on the inventory undertaken and based on various documents recovered at the time of investigation. The appellant instead of replying to the notice, vide letter dated 25.04.2015 requested for one months' time to reply to the notice, which was granted up to 31.05.2015 and personal hearing was scheduled on 03.06.2015. The appellant once again vide his letter dated 25.05.2015 submitted that due to his illness, he was not in a position to reply to the notice and requested for 3 months' time and time was granted again till 25.06.2015. Once again, the appellant vide letter dated 18.06.2015 submitted that he was bedridden and was advised complete rest and sought adjournment for filing the reply and to attend the personal hearing. The personal hearing was rescheduled to 16.07.2015 and the appellant was informed that reply to the notice could also be submitted on or before that date. The appellant once again vide letter dated 15.07.2015 submitted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Customs Act, hence the appeal itself is not maintainable." Against this order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide Writ Petition No.8408 of 2016. The Hon'ble High Court disposed the petition on the ground that Section 129A(1) would clearly indicate that any order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority is an appealable order, which would lie before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal was set aside and was directed to reconsider the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner. Hence, the present appeal. 6.2 The Commissioner in the impugned order has rejected cross-examination of 8 individuals. The appellant is aggrieved with rejection only against 6 individuals. Let's examine the reasons for rejection for cross-examination. a. Witness No.2 Shri P.S. Ramasamy, Preventive Officer was the person who prepared the inventory of the seized articles and arrested the appellant. Cross-examination has been denied by the Commissioner on the ground that the appellant had not challenged the inventory of the goods and with regard to arrest executed under Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the adjudication proceedings and hence, Commissioner's rejection on this ground is also a valid ground. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the request of the appellant for cross examination of all the above witnesses. 6.3 From the facts recorded at Para 5 above, it is seen that the show-cause notice was issued on 31st March 2015, the appellant went on delaying to reply to the show-cause notice with one or the other pretext and nearly after 5 months, reply was filed on 24.08.2015. In his reply, the appellant had challenged legality of the show-cause notice and various proceedings during the investigation based on legal infirmities but nowhere has he stated specific reasons for cross-examination of the officers and other individuals except mentioning at Para (xii) "The officers of Customs who effected this seizure u/s 110(1) and (3) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the officers of Customs who recorded the statements of the importer any the officers who arrested the importer may be summoned for cross examination." There is no mention of the name of the officers or any individuals. Only on 14.09.2015, the appellant submitted a letter providing the list of witnesses to be cross-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the consignment and from the documents retrieved from their computers and hence the cross examination does not serve any purpose. 8.1 Similarly, in the case of Manidhari Stainless Wire Pvt Ltd. vs. Union of India (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows: "27. In paragraph 19, the Supreme Court extracted paragraph 12 of the decision in Kanungo & Co. Eventually the Court held in paragraph 20 as follows : "20. Coming to the case at hand, the Adjudicating Authority has mainly relied upon the statements of the appellants and the documents seized in the course of the search of their premises. But, there is no dispute that apart from what was seized from the business premises of the appellants the Adjudicating Authority also placed reliance upon documents produced by Miss Anita Chotrani and Mr. Raut. These documents were, it is admitted disclosed to the appellants who were permitted to inspect the same. The production of the documents duly confronted to the appellants was in the nature of production in terms of Section 139 of the Evidence Act, where the witness producing the documents is not subjected to cross-examination. Such being the case, the refusal of ....