TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heard simultaneously and decided together. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is a holder of Customs Broker Lincese issued by Hyderabad Customs Commissionerate with validity up to 28.01.2025. The appellant is a partnership firm with Shri Rajendranath Bharathi and Smt. Padmaja Bharathi as partners. They are also transacting their business in Bengaluru Customs in terms of Regulation 7(2) of CBLR, 2013 (now Regulation 7(3) of CBLR, 2018). The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Bengaluru, vide email dt.10.03.2023 forwarded a letter dt.19.08.2022 along with investigation report dt.20.01.2022 issued by the DRI, Bengaluru and SCN dt.24.01.2022 issued by Additional Commissioner, wherein it was mentioned that DRI had intercepted export consignment of red sanders, which was being attempted to be exported by way of mis-declaring the same as 'industrial pipes' by M/s TEAC Engineers vide Shipping Bills dt.26.07.2021 from export shed of Air India Sats, Bengaluru and the appellant is involved in the same. Further, in the investigation report, it was brought out that Shri C. Munikrishna, G-Card holder of the appellant has knowingly involved in the conspiracy of illegal smuggling and actively ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice of Customs Commissionerate, Hyderabad, vide email dt.06.03.2025 submitted a report that it was received on 10.03.2023 and therefore, the SCN dt.03.04.2023 was issued within the stipulated time, as required under the law. 6. Learned AR further submitted that the ground taken by the appellant that they were not allowed to cross examine the persons, on whose statements the reliance was placed while issuing SCN, is not correct as the adjudicating authority has given detailed reasoning in this regard and found that the statements relied upon in the SCN were not retracted. It is also submitted that the case against the appellants is not solely based on the statements of the various persons but also on the documentary evidence. Accordingly, learned AR prays for dismissing the appeals filed by the appellants. 7. Heard both sides and perused the records. 8. We find that learned Counsel for the appellant emphasized that the SCN was issued beyond the prescribed period of 90 days and that the date of knowledge of the Commissioner, by any means of communication, has to be construed as the date of receipt of offence report. He further submitted that letter dt.19.08.2022 along with investi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not mere directory. e) CC (General) Vs SK Logistics [2016 (337) ELT 39 (Del)]:- In this case, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that Regulation 22(5) of CHALR, 2004 stipulates that enquiry report should be submitted in 90 days from the date of issue of notice under sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 22 ibid. f) CC, Tuticorin Vs MKS Shipping Agencies Pvt Ltd [2017 (348) ELT 640 (Mad)]:- In this case, Hon'ble Madras High Court held that Regulation 22(1) states that Show cause notice for revocation of CHA's license to be issued within 90 days from the date of offence report is not directory but it is mandatory because regulations have statutory force and also reiterated in CBE & C Circular No.9/2010-Cus dt.08.04.2010. 9. Learned AR has stated that letter dt.19.08.2022 was received by the Hyderabad Customs Commissionerate on 10.03.2023 and this was also supported by SCN dt.03.04.2023 wherein at Para 2 it was mentioned that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Bengaluru, vide email dt.10.03.2023 forwarded letter dt.19.08.2022 along with investigation report dt.20.01.2022 issued by the DRI, Bengaluru and SCN dt.24.01.2022 issued by the Additional Commissioner, Bengaluru. Therefore, it was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent dt.03.08.2021 stated that he is holding digital signature and he is the one who approves all the shipping bills or bills of entry filed by or on behalf of their firm. He further stated that Shri C. Munikrishna, Branch Manager of their Bengaluru branch, is the one who is responsible for filing shipping bills dt.03.06.2021 and that he approved it without due diligence and he has also agreed that two major mistakes were committed by Shri C. Munikrishna i.e., failure to verify KYC documents of the exporter and not obtaining authorization from the exporter to file the shipping bill. Hence learned AR submitted that the responsibility cannot be denied relating to shipping bill dt.03.06.2021. The principle laid down in the above mentioned case is not applicable due to above mentioned reason. 13. On the issue of cross examination not provided during the adjudication proceedings before the adjudicating authority, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that denial of cross-examination of the witnesses to the proceedings are violation of the principles of natural justice. In support of his contention, he has relied on the following case laws. a) M/s Shasta Freight Services Pvt Ltd ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hout threats, duress or coercion. 14. Learned AR has relied on the decision of Principal Bench of the Tribunal at Delhi in the case of GTC Industries Ltd Vs CC, New Delhi [2011 (264) ELT 433 (Tri-Del)], wherein it was held that cross examination of the witnesses cannot be claimed as a right when the statements are not retracted. The relevant portion is held as under: "Natural justice - Cross-examination - Reliance and testimony of witness calls for cross-examination - Evidence in adjudication proceeding need not be like the one in criminal cases - Findings in adjudication based on preponderance of probability - Witnesses found to be not innocent but well conversant with appellants' trade - Statements of witnesses voluntary and not retracted - Reply to show cause notice not filed and merely raised flimsy plea for cross-examination prematurely - Right to cross-examination can be taken away under certain circumstances - Cross-examination not required when circumstantial evidence providing reliable basis corroborating statements - Witnesses not having enmity with appellant and such witnesses not required to put to crossexamination - No right to seek cross-examination on flimsy plea ....