TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1284
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pecific information that certain courier firms were engaged in import of a variety of contraband goods by mis-declaring them as household goods and goods of daily necessities. The said shipments said to have originated from Dubai/Hong Kong and imported through Air Cargo Complex, Kolkata were interdicted. Acting on the said information, the officers of the DRI, Kolkata Zonal Unit, examined three courier consignments and sixteen general import consignments during the period 05.06.17 to 01.08.17. The imported goods were found to be grossly mis-declared in terms of description, quantity, brand description, value, etc. The courier imports declared as gift items and personal effects (which are exempt from payment of duty) were however found to be Cigarettes, Protein supplements, Steroids, Hormone supplements, etc. imported in large/commercial quantities. The general import cargo was declared as low value items like footwear, stickers for garments, mobile accessories, unbranded shoes, mobile phones in SKD condition, branded mobile phones, watches, cameras, pen drives, memory cards, etc. in the Bill of Entry, while in effect were declared as mobile phones/mobile phone parts or accessories ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eir role in the matter. The gist of the statements as tendered by the accused officers and flows from records is as under:- "8.1 Statement of Shri Vikki Kumar, Shed Appraiser of Customs posted at ACC, Kolkata, who was reported to have examined the consignment of M/s Yash International seized by DRI, was recorded on 06.06.2017 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 wherein Shri Vikki stated inter alia that; a) From 18.06.2016 to 30.09.2016 he worked as Examiner at ACC Kolkata, after which he was working as appraiser at ACC Kolkata. b) He was looking after assessment related work in Bills of Entry in import shed. c) As per prevalent practice followed at ACC Kolkata, in the case of RMS (Risk Management System) Bill of Entry, CHA used to submit Bill of Entry to the Examining Officer who would check the MAWB (Master Airway Bill) and HAWB (House Airway Bill) of the concerned Bill of Entry, that if MAWB and HAWB Nos. were found in order, the Bill of Entry was presented before the shed who used to check the classification and correctness of notification benefit; that if all the above parameters were found in order, Out of Charge was given in the syst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anda Bala, EO Customs dated 06.06.2017: Statement of Shri Pranabananda Bala, Examining Officer of Customs posted at ACC. Kolkata, who reported to have examined the consignment was recorded on 06.06.2017 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 wherein Shri Bala inter alias stated that, a) From March 2016 to Feb 2017 he had been attached to ACC Appraising Unit, ACC Kolkata and since Feb 2017 he had been working in ACC Import shed as EO. b) As per allocation, his duty was to examine goods which were presented to him and to report to shed for OOC (Out of Charge). c) As the prevalent procedure, in the case of RMS (Risk Management System) Bill of Entry, CHA (Custom House Agent) used to submit Bills of Entry to him, that he would check the MAWB (Master Airway Bill) and HAWB (House Airway Bill number of the said Bill of Entry with the goods and also would check the required documents i.e. invoice, packing list, Airway Bill, DISA Certificate and other certificates, that regarding the group assessed Bills of Entry, he would examine the consignment as per the order of group along with shed and he would give examination report to shed for sending it to group. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... found some protein supplement in the consignment. 8.4. Further statement of said Shri Pranabananda Bala, Examiner of Customs was recorded on 07.06.2017 under Section 108 of the Customs Art, 1962 wherein Shri Vikki stated inter alia that; a) As per direction of DC Import shed, the CHA (representative of the Customs Broker) placed 5 Packages, out of 139 Packages imported under Bill of Entry Na 9940859 dated 02.05.2017 pertaining to M/s Yash International, which were found to contain the declared items namely "Sticker for Garments" that however, he was supposed to examine 5% i.e. seven packages; that he had given examination report of 7 packages on the hard copy of the Bill of Entry without physically examining 7 Packages. b) Shri Vikki Kumar mis-stated on 06.06.2017, as he was present during examination of the consignment imported by M/s Yash International under Bill of Entry No. 9940859 dated 02.06.2017. c) In respect of all the consignments handled by the Customs Broker. M/s Sadguru Forwarders Pvt. Ltd cleared in recent past, they were ordered for manual out of charge by DC Import shed, irrespective of whether EDI system was working or was out o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 and he was confronted with the statement dated 08.06.2017 of Shri Navneet Kumar, DC wherein he (Navneet Kumar) denied of giving manual release order on any Bill of Entry. In his statement dated 13.06.2017 Shri Vikki Kumar stated, inter alia, that; a) Shri Navneet Kumar had given manual release order on the first page of the hard copy of the Bill of Entry No. 9940859 dated 02.06.2017 pertaining to M/s Yash international and 9441310 dated 03.06.2017 and the Bills of Entry were presented by the CHA to the shed officers, that accordingly. goods were examined and manual examination report was given; that after that he had given manual out of charge, that he had never given any manual out of charge for any Bill of Entry without the permission of DC in his posting as shed in import charges; b) On seeing the hard copies of the Bill of Entry No. 9940859 dated 02.06.2017, 9441310 dated 03.06.2017 and 9947893 dated 03.06.2017 he identified the "Manual Release" order of DC Navneet Kumar with his (Navneet Kumar) short signature which was at bottom right corner on the first page of each Bills of Entry No. 9940859 dated 02.06.2017, 9441310 dated 03.06.2017 and 9947893 dated 03....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vneet Kumar. Subsequently for confirmation, the necessary documents were tendered to the Director, Kolkata Institute of Graphology and confirmation about the signatures of Navneet Kumar was received by the authorities. In order to confront Navneet Kumar, Deputy Commissioner with the subsequent statements tendered by Shri Pranabananda Bala, Examining Officer, Shri Vikki Kumar, Shed Appraiser as well as that of Shri Vishal Kumar, Appraiser, SIIB and as also to carry out forensic examination of the seized mobile phones recovered, the Deputy Commissioner was summoned who chose to remain absent but appeared later before the DRI authorities on 21st June 2017 and 23rd June 2017. In response to the summons issued, the Deputy Commissioner however denied all charges, passing the blame on to subordinate officers. He held them responsible, for the gross irregularities in clearance of mis-declared goods. 7. The department carried out detailed investigations with reference to manual out of charge given in the subject matter and recorded statements of various persons, including both Vikki Kumar and Pranabanand Bala. Based on the investigations conducted by DRI, the Disciplinary Authority subse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed contraband goods like cigarettes which are prohibited for use in India as those do not bear the statutory warnings. As in the case of the seized consignment, he had also executed his jobs in similar manner on behalf of the smuggling syndicate in respect of clearance of all the past consignment of the subject Importer. Nasir Uddin was knowingly involved in such gross mis-declaration, knowing fully well that the goods were mis declared and are, therefore, liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. It further appears that Md. Nasir Uddin knowingly or 10. However, to appreciate the case in its entirety, it would be appropriate to place on record the gist of the investigations of the case. Show Cause Notice para 15.1 to 15.7 are therefore extracted herein below and need to be gone through. 11. Interestingly, it may also be of importance, to place on record, the extent of co-operation/non co-operation, by the two key accused Aloke Ghosh and Nasiruddin, who in response to summons issued for recording statements u/s 108 of the Customs Act, demanded its withdrawal on the plea that DRI could not investigate the matter, as CBI was already seized of the case and investigating....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal in the location and identification of the other co-accused Naseer Uddin who undertook to carry out the dirty work and handle the clearance job of mis-declared consignments. Nonetheless, records show that Naseer Uddin was allowed to utilize the office machinery of Sajal Das's office to transmit/receive e-mail communications with importers particularly Mayur Mehta as well as Swati Vora alias Monica Vora. Even the bank statement revealed that Sajal Das's firm-Nirmala Bala Trading, were remitted an amount of Rs. 5 lakh by one Pacific Enterprises. It is for these reasons, apart from preparing forged & false papers for the importer Yash International that the Sajal Das amongst others was found culpable of offence punishable under Sections 112 (a), 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act. 15. Investigations and enquires as were conducted by DRI with Consulate General of India, Hong Kong, revealed details of import in respect of 17 out of 21 consignments imported by M/s Yash International. The particulars of the said 17 consignments as found in the Trade Declaration System in Hong Kong, SAR and as communicated by the Consulate General of India, Hong Kong are as under:- Table-3 SL.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lue of the imported goods is clearly discernible. The following table illustrates the value of the impugned goods declared before Hong Kong Customs vis-à-vis Indian Customs, in the seventeen of the twenty one such cases. Table-4 SI. NO. SUPPLIER NAME MASTER AIRWAY BIL LNUMBER MASTER AIRWAY BILL CATE CORRESPONDING VALUE DECLARED AT THE PORT OF SHIPMENT PREVALET EX. RATE VALUE EQUIVALENT TO INR CORRES. BILL OF ENTRY NUMBER BILL OF ENTRY DATE BILL OF ENTRY ASSESSED VALUE IN INA 1 STARLIGHT TECHNOLOGY LIMITED 17639362500 28 04 2017 HK$321408 8 44 2/15897.60 9518201 01-05-2017 378872 2 STARLIGHT TECHNOLOGY LIMITED 17639362396 25 04-2017 HK$390600 2.45 3300570.00 9513525 01-05-2017 423554 3 STARLIGHT TECHNOLOGY LIMITED 21713782731 26-04-2017 HK$446400 3.45 3772080.00 9513486 01-05-2017 581129 4 STAR LIGHT TECHNOLOGY LIMITED 17639362492 28-04-2017 HK$761856 3.45 6437683.20 9535270 02-05-2017 445876 5 STARLINE TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. 16080817520 02-05-2017 HK$377952 3.45 3193694.40 9543614 03-05-2017 408397....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ach time only by the above named set of officers upon whom the DRI levelled the connivance charge, based on the notings of the hard copy of Bill of Entry No. 9940859 dated 02.06.2017 filed by M/s Yash International pertaining to one of the said consignments as was seized. 18. The Deputy Commissioner Shri Navneet Kumar had given written orders for manual release. It is the submission of the Revenue that such trusted officers, Navneet Kumar, Vikky Kumar and P. V. Bala would give the out of Charge(OOC) in the EDI system, well past physical delivery of the goods. The fact of giving manual out of charge as per written directions of Navneet Kumar has been admitted by both Vikki Kumar and Pranabananda Bala. It is therefore the findings of the investigating authority that in respect of seven previously cleared consignments of M/s Yash International, manual OOC was given by the said officers and subsequently regularized in the EDI system. Though it is a fact that the Revenue could not lay its hands on the hard copies of the Bills of Entry, yet time stamps by way of digital footprints and its comparison with gate passes issued by the Air Port Authority of India (AAI), clearly establish th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the EDI system. This action on the part of the officer, is certainly not as simple as may appear to be on the face of it. It indeed is a well thought out machination clearly driven by mensrea and a design to outsmart systems and procedures. It is like the proverbial the snake gets killed without the stick breaking. This course of action by Navneet Kumar is also corroborated by independent testimony of Vikky Kumar and Pranabananda Bala, that in certain cases manual OOC was given on the strength of orders issued by Navneet Kumar and which were later regularized in the EDI system. The time chart as indicated in the above Table proves the said fact. 20. From the course of investigations conducted into the matter, it is evident that a well thought out conspiracy was hatched by certain elements, fictitious firms were carved out with the knowledge, connivance and assistance of the above named Departmental officers. The appellant Deputy Commissioner, the appellant Appraising Officer and the appellant Shed Examiner all acting in cahoots, for carrying out illegal import/smuggling of goods in the guise of courier consignments as well as general cargo imports by grossly mis-declaring the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... abominable elements concerned with mis-declaration, under valuation and illegal import of the goods. Post hearing of the matter, the two sides were directed to submit written notes. The said written notes in case of Navneet Kumar, Pranabananda Bala and Vikky Kumar were since received and taken on record. 24. The Learned AR for Revenue has also submitted his written notes on 15th April 2025 in the matter. 25. The Learned Advocate for the appellants have submitted that allegations against their clients are basically a cut & copy job. He submitted that the allegations pertaining to the live consignment interdicted was not part of the instant proceedings and hence tried to distinguish the matter by saying that the Show Cause Notice pertains to only one live consignment of M/s. Yash International that has been relied upon without the RUDs. He further submitted that the allegations made with reference to the live consignment have been assumingly latched on to the past import consignments and this has been done without corroboration and any substantive evidence. It may be pointed out here itself that we find reference to the live consignment, as only by way of narration of the sequ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vy charge in respect of such documents as the said officers had no role to play at that point in time. We would like to mention that, be as it may, the modus adopted by the appellant is quick paced, leaving hardly any space, in time dimension, between noting, assessment and final exit of the imported goods from the customs precincts, as all system related entries are but obfuscated, morphed and camouflaged with in temporal and spatial sense, by routing through the manual route and only updated in the EDI system as a post script and not on a real time basis. It also appears that the Bill of Entry No. indicated as 3300330 is not correct. 27. The Learned Advocate for the three Revenue Officers, further submits that in respect of the said three Bills of Entry as well as 16 General Import consignments neither checklist nor any Bills of Entry had been filed as on 5th June 2017, while Bill of Entry was filed only in respect of eight such consignments by the importer/CHA and in respect of five such consignments only check list had been filed, whereas for the remaining three, even no check list have been filed. He further submits that the Deputy Commissioner had raised queries in five of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Accordingly, the instant SCN was issued demanding the differential duty amount of Rs. 77, 34, 435/- (Rupees seventy-seven lakh thirty-four thousand four hundred and thirty-five) under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 along with applicable interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962. It is observed that only the departmental Customs officers, who are co-noticees in the instant case have raised arguments in respect of Sec. 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, wherein their stance is that a notice under Section 28(4) of the Act ibid can be issued to a person who is chargeable with duty, who can be the importer or the exporter or the agent or employee of the importer or exporter. The aforesaid co-noticees have also vehemently opposed the invocation of Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, as they argued that it can legally be issued to a person who is the owner of the goods in question or from whose possession goods have been seized. They have thus argued that being neither importer/exporter or agent/employee of the importer/exporter they cannot be the person chargeable with duty as they were not the beneficial owners of the goods in question nor were the goods recovered fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- (a) collusion; or (b) any wilful mis-statement; or (c) suppression of facts, by the importer or the exporter or the agent or employee of the importer or exporter, the proper officer shall, within five years from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with duty or interest which has not been [so levied or not paid] or which has been so short-levied or short-paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice". 31. It is thus clear that there is a mandatory requirement of either (a) collusion; or (b) any wilful mis-statement; or (c) suppression of facts by the importer, where there is short levy of duty for invocation of Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. As, on tabulation a grave mismatch in the declaration made by the importer, while comparing the export and import declarations/documents and clearance of the goods imported vide impugned Bills of Entry and declaration made by the exporter at the port of shipment in respect of these Bills of Entry is obvious. The facts on record reveal a huge mis-declaration in respect of the valuation of the goods and there is also blat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eworked the said value as Rs.5,46,47,936/-, in accordance with the manner as laid down in law. In this regard, it may also be pointed out that the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. PV Ukku International Trade [2009(235) ELT 229(Ker)], had held that the adoption of Transaction Value under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules would apply only when the transaction value declared was found to be genuine and correct. In the present case the goods were largely declared as to what they were not, obviously there being a variation in the value and description declared. The direct evidence, as sourced through diplomatic channels regarding the actual value and the description of goods cannot be refuted and is required to be considered as sufficient proof, which alone can form the basis of the determination of the transaction value. 34. The departmental Customs officers viz. Navneet Kumar, Vikki Kumar and P. Bala, who are co-noticees in the instant case, have defended the declared the value of the impugned goods and cited the judgement of the apex court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai -Vs- M/s Ganpati Overseas 2003 (286) EL....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... interdict the RMS facilitated Bills of Entry and subject them to proper physical examination. An offence be it singular or multiple continues to remain an offence. 36. Under aforesaid circumstances the Courts have repeatedly upheld the valuation, as adopted on the basis of export declarations. Thus, the CESTAT, Principal Bench in the case of Konia Trading Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur [2006 (199) ELT 644(Tri.Del.)], had held that the authenticity of the report as made by an authority, who had come to know about inaccurate export declarations and variations in the CIF value declared would stand proven in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. That is to state that without resorting to any presumption, evidentiary value of official report is sufficient to establish under-valuation done by appellant. The relevant extract of the said judgement is reproduced as under:- "......8. The report dated 24-7-1999 was written by an officer of the Customs & Excise Department of Hong Kong in response to a request for investigative assistance, as noted therein, made through the Consulate General of India. It refers to the name of the importer, M/s. Zaptron (HK) Ltd. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t that the appellant had under-valued the goods covered by these two invoices, since the correct valuation declared before the Customs authorities of Hong Kong in respect of these two invoices as per their official record was now authentically communicated in this report. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any valid ground for interfering with the impugned order. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed" 37. Likewise, this Tribunal in the case of Craft Studio vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur reported in [2004 (163) ELT 109(Tri.-Del.)], under identical set of circumstances, upheld the order of the lower authority confirming the short levy and imposing penalty on the accused persons. Material extract of the order is as under:- "....5. This is a clear case of undervaluation of goods in official documents and misdeclaration of price in order to evade customs duty. The investigations by the Hong Kong Authorities have clearly brought out the modus operandi adopted by the appellant and its supplier to undeclared price in invoices for evasion of customs duty. In these circumstances, no interference with the duty demand and penalty is called for. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Hong Kong Customs authorities. This case is altogether different from the cases cited by the appellants in their defence. The decision of the Apex Court in CC, Bombay v. East Punjab Traders [1997 (89) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.) = 1997 (18) RLT 537 (S.C.)] case related to obtaining of some document from abroad by visiting customs officer and using that as evidence in customs proceedings. As against that, in the present case, the customs authorities of another jurisdiction have investigated the transaction at their end and have reported findings. Some documents have also been forwarded to substantiate those findings. This judgment of the Apex Court has no application to the present case. Similar is the position in respect of other decisions also. The present case is similar to the case of Orson Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1996 (82) E.L.T. 499 (Trib.)] wherein the Tribunal held that export declarations filed by the exporters themselves in the exporting jurisdiction, constituted reliable evidence. This order has been confirmed by the Apex Court [1997 (93) E.L.T. A133 (S.C.)]. In the present case, apart from the export declarations, the transactions have been invest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 consignments, no assessment and no examination orders were issued and the fact of no role of the officers coming into play, maybe as it is, but evidently still administrative control and role of the officers would not cease to exist. In the remaining set of 10 consignments, the facts do certainly bring out the active role of the appellants, as discussed in pre paras. Moreover, no assessment can be said to be completed without the concurrence of the Appraising Group AC/DC in-charge. Though ordinarily not done, nothing prevents the group in-charge to interdict the RMS Bill of Entry and have it picked up for a routine examination/assessment. Not having so undertaken, lays emphasis on the active collusion, picking-up only pre selected packages for checking/examination etc. at the behest of the fraudster, ably assisted by the departmental officers. 41. It is a well known fact that in such suspicious and fishy cases, original documents are generally made unavailable to the authorities and quickly removed from the scene, so as to leave no trail of the role played. All primary piece of evidence is destroyed. Nonetheless in today's digital age, footprints by way digital signatures are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ck/Shed DC inter alia is to ensure that the sheds in his charge function smoothly with reference to the the activities relating to examination of cargo. He should check atleast 10% of the Bills of entry passed by the Appraisers. He should particularly ensure that Bills of Entry where large amounts of duty are involved are invariably taken for test-check, as enumerated in Para 4 & 4A of Chapter-2 of the Appraising Manual. The said relevant extract is as follows:- "..4. Duties of (Astt, Collector) Docks The Asstt. Collector in charge of the Jetties and Docks, is responsible for the smooth and efficientworking o all the outdoor appraising unit in his charge, In particular he will be responsible for : (i) Proper distribution of the staff so as to secure best performance of Customs work under his charge. He shall keep a register showing disposition of Appraisers and Examining Officers. (ii) Overall supervision and periodical test check of the work of his officers. (iii) Regular. and surprise visits to all examination sheds in his jurisdiction, where he will spend a sufficient portion of each day, select certain bills of entry and, with assist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Departmental Orders, Office orders. The relevant Circulars/D.Os etc. should be properly maintained up-to date and be available for proper reference. 4A. Duties & Responsibilities of Astt. Collector Docks (upon recommendation of customs study team) (a) The Asstt. Collector should keep a general control over the activities in the sheds under his charge. He should collect and keep necessary data regarding volume of work in each shed and should send a report monthly to the Collector regarding the activities in the sheds under his jurisdiction. Such reports should deal with the public relations aspect, volume of work and all cases of important detections made regarding evasion of duty or misdeclaration of contents and the points pursued with the Port Commissioners in respect of cargo (Short-land ed cargo, cases with missing contents, damaged goods, missing cases etc.). (b) The Asstt. Collector shall be responsible to ensure that the sheds in his charge function smoothly with reference to the activities relating to examination of cargo. He should look into the difficulties of the individual traders and should attend to them immediately on the spot. He should e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for penal action in law. His role in helping assured in make out because of which false import documents that did not correspond with the actual imports has already been brought. 45. Amongst other arguments, the learned advocate has submitted that natural justice was not afforded to them. We note from records that the impugned show cause notice along with its RUDs was duly sent to all noticees. The same is not disputed. Attested copy of the SCN/RUDs were also supplied to the noticees at the time of personal hearing, as requested. Ample opportunity of being heard was extended to all the noticees, to enable them defend their case. In so far the present appellants are concerned, all of them have actively participated in proceedings before the lower authorities. This argument therefore is dismissed at the very threshold. 46. Adjudication Procedure of offences under the Customs Act, 1962 is set out in section 122A under Chapter XIII of the Act, ibid which reads as under: "Section 122A - Adjudication Procedure (1) The adjudicating authority shall, in any proceeding under this Chapter or any other provision of this Act, give an opportunity of being heard to a part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e find that in the subject case, both the ingredients laid down by the Apex Court have been satisfied and met with to the hilt, as also noted by the lower authority. b) In the case of Uma Nath Pandey vs State of U.P. [2009(237) E.L.T 241(S.C.)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there are two rules of Principles of Natural Justice. First rule is 'nemo judex in causa sua' meaning 'no man shall be a judge in his own cause' and second rule of natural justice is 'audi alteram partem', meaning no one should be condemned unheard. It is observed by the Hon'ble Court that notice is first limb of this principle, notice must be precise and unambiguous and it is essential that party is put on notice before passing adverse order against him. Second limb is time given should be adequate so as to enable party to make its representation. In the facts of the present case, none of the two limbs can be held to be violated of. 48. It is on this principle that Natural Justice ensures that both sides should be heard fairly and reasonably. As a part of this principle if any reliance is placed on evidence on record against a person, then that evidenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or should be allowed to be cross-examined by them on the statements made before the Customs Authorities. Accordingly, I hold that there is no force in the third contention of the appellant." II. In the case of Suman Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs & C.Ex., Baroda [2002 (142) E.L.T. 640 (Tri.-Mumbai)], Tribunal observed at Para 17 that- 17. Counsel also made a grievance on the ground that cross-examination of certain dealers were not made available. We have perused the recent judgments of the Tribunal on the issue of cross-examination in the judgment in the case of Gobind Lal v. CC - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 515, the Tribunal held that where the statements were confessional and where the witnesses were not given for cross-examination principles of natural justice could not be held to have been violated. In the case of Liyakat Shah v. CCE - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 556, the Tribunal has held that cross-examination was not a mandatory procedure to be allowed in all cases. Same view was held in the case of Poddar Tyres (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2000 (126) E.L.T. 737. III. In the case of Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad V. Tallaja Impex (2012(279) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant to cross-examine these two persons. We may refer to the paragraph in AIR 1972 SC 2136 = 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1486 (S.C.) (Kanungo & Co. v. Collector, Customs, Calcutta)" 50. The Courts and the Tribunal have repeatedly held that there is no right in perpetuity to insist for cross-examination as a part of procedural justice system. The following cases may be cited to reinforce the contention: I. Poddar Tyres (Pvt) Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2000 (126) E.L.T. 737: - Wherein it has been held that cross-examination not a part of natural justice but only that of procedural justice and not a 'sine qua non'. II. Kumar Jagdish Ch. Sinha v. Collector - 2000 (124) E.L.T. 118 (Cal H.C.): - In this case it has been held that the right to confront witnesses is not an essential requirement of natural justice where the statute is silent and the assessee has been offered an opportunity to explain allegations made against him. III. A.K. Hanbeen Motarred vs. Collector - 2000 (125) E.L.T. 173 (Mad HC): wherein it has been held that the strict rule of burden of proof applicable to criminal prosecution may not be applicable to proceedings before Customs authorities. 51. It....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ord that the appellants whose statements were recorded under Section 108 of the said Act had made confessional statements implicating themselves under Section 112 of the Act and such statements were clearly binding on them. There was no question of their statements being recorded under duress, because as noted above, on 18-12-1992 when two vehicles were intercepted at two distant places namely at Kanpur and Ghaziabad near Delhi, statements of four different persons were recorded by different sets of officers reflected the involvement of the same persons including the appellant, Ashish Kumar Chaurasia, and there was no possibility of the same story being cooked up at two different places by the department. The drivers of the two vehicles had no enmity against the appellant Ashish Kumar Chaurasia, or the appellant Ram Avatar Singhal and their version, showing the involvement of Ashish Kumar Chaurasia as the person who kept the silver ingots of foreign origin concealed in his premises and giving them to Ram Avatar Singhal for melting and disposing them of, has a ring of truth. If statements were recorded under compulsion and duress at two different places by two different sets of offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....So there is no need to call Panch witnesses for examination and cross-examination by the petitioner." It may be noticed that the above observations were made even though the petitioner had retracted within six days from the confession. The Supreme Court held that confession though retracted is an admission and was binding on the petitioner and, therefore, there was no need to call panch witnesses for cross-examination of the witnesses. Therefore, so far as the appellants whose statements were recorded under Section 108 of the said Act and who had clearly confessed to their involvement, there would be no violation of the principles of natural justice as the witnesses were not required to be produced for cross-examination. Their subsequent retraction did not entitle them to claim cross-examination of the witnesses on the aspects which were confessed by them. In the present case, even after the retraction, there have been statements, recorded on 3-1-1993 amounting to confessions. 52. We note from records that a faint plea of seeking shelter under Section 155 of the Customs Act, has also been canvassed by the Departmental Officers. However, having arrived at the irresistibl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould not apply to enquiries and investigations undertaken by the DRI or the Customs department. "It held that as long as the said statements were not given by way of threat or co-ercion its voluntary nature would remain impeached and were the statement made, to be retracted, the onus would lie on the maker of the statement to prove such coercion, threat or duress. 54. Section 138B(2) or any other provisions of the Customs Act do not provide for such explicit arrangement for an examination-in-chief, cross examination and re-examination. The instant case is not merely based on the statements of any other person, but also the statements of the noticees themselves, who have sought cross-examination of each other without specifying any stated purpose or even alluding to their of being involuntary and co-erced. In view of the legal position as detailed above, the elaborate discussions in the matter, the factual position on record, we hold that cross-examination sought by the noticees was without any merit and a ploy to delay and digress the adjudication proceedings. In the aforesaid view of the matter, denial of crossexamination cannot be considered as violative of Principles of Natur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be completed in the absence of formal and express reports furnished by the said officers. The Examiner cannot be held as to be not responsible about the discrepancy in declaration furnished which is violative of the product imported. On the contrary, he is one such officer who has access to the imported goods in their physical form. While giving manual Out of Charge, though at the behest of the group DC Navneet Kumar, the Shed Examiner cannot be absolved of in the matter as he not only failed to the appreciate illegality of such orders as issued by the Deputy Commissioner but was an active and willing collusionist. He was aware of the wrong doing which were admitted by both Shri Vikky Kumar and Pranabnandbala in their statements. Since both of them had crucial role to play in the examination and ultimate issue of Out of Charge Orders, the Shed Appraiser and Docks Examiner cannot be held to be innocent victims. Their role and actions have also been corroborated by Nasiruddin himself, in as much as it is on record that Navneet Kumar had assured Nasiruddin about the clearance of misdeclared cargo, inter alia pointing out that both Vikky Kumar and Pranabnandbala posted at import she....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant is with regard to the quantum of penalties imposed on them. We find from records that each of the four appellants were levied with varying amounts of penalty both under Section 112 a (ii) and Section 114AA. The two sections read as under:- Section 112. Penalty for improper importation of goods, etc.- Any person, - (a) who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or (b) who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under section 111, shall be liable, - (i)...................... [(ii) in the case of dutiable goods, other than prohibited goods, subject to the provisions of section 114A, to a penalty not exceeding ten per cent. of the duty sought to be evaded or five thousand rupees, whichever is higher : (iii).................. (iv)..........................
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equired to be mentioned under the regulations in an [arrival manifest, import manifest] or import report which are not so mentioned; (i) any dutiable or prohibited goods found concealed in any manner in any package either before or after the unloading thereof; (l) any dutiable or prohibited goods which are not included or are in excess of those included in the entry made under this Act, or in the case of baggage in the declaration made under section 77; (m) [any goods which do not correspond in respect of value or in any other particular] with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under section 77 [in respect thereof, or in the case of goods under transhipment, with the declaration for transhipment referred to in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 54]; (q)........................ As is clear from a reading of the legal provisions in the backdrop of the discussions, there can be no offence to the confiscability of the said goods under the aforesaid provisions. Thus the four appellants have rendered themselves liable to penal consequences. Moreover, the clear conspiracy hatched with ulterior des....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asir Uddin) 9830050950 (used by Navneet Kumar) 17 7th June, 2017 9163941885 (used by Navneet Kumar) 9051815280 (used by Nasir Uddin) 2 7th & 8th June, 2017 9051815280 (used by Nasir Uddin) 9163941885 (used by Navneet Kumar) 7 SCN No. 07/2022-23 dt. 29.04.2022 M/s. Yash International Page 31 of 139 -457- OIONo. KOL/CUS/A&A/Pr. COMMISSIONER/ADJN/16/2024 March, 2017 to April, 2017 9830050950 (used by Navneet Kumar) 9830022624 (used by Sajal Das) 23 March, 2017 to May, 2017 9830022624 (used by Sajal Das) 9830050950 (used by Navneet Kumar) 1: 8th March, 2017 9830050950 (used by Navneet Kumar) 9821710875 (used by Mayur Mehta) 1 22nd February, 2017 9821710875 (used by Mayur Mehta) 9830050950 (used by Navneet Kumar) 1 8th Much, 2017 9163941885 (used by Navneet Kurnar) 9821710875 (used by Mayur Mehta) 1 6th April, 2017 9830050950 (used by Navneet Kumar) 9871125627 (used by Mayur Mehta) 1 6th & 18th April, 2017 9871125627 (used by Mayur Mehta) 9830050950 (used by Navneet Kumar) 2 March, 2017 to June, 2017 9051024108 (used by Pranabananda Balal 9830022624 (used by Sajal Das) 00 30th March, 2017 9830022624 (used by Sajal Das) 9051024108 (used by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay, 2017 8444009193 (used by Santosh) 9830810095 (used by Nasir Uddin) 104 March, 2017 to June, 2017 9821710875 (used by Mayur Mehta) 9836362166 (used by Santosh} 11 March, 2017 to May, 2017 9836362166 (used by Santosh) 9821710875 (used by Mayur Mehta) 5 May, 2017 to June, 2017 9619684111 (used by Mayur Mehta) 9836362166 (used by Santosh) 4 26th April, 2017 & 6th May, 2017 9867839225 (used by Monica) 9836362165 (used by Santosh) 2 March, 2017 to June, 2017 9836362166 (used by Santosh) 8130628083 (used by Mon:ca) 4 15th & 22nd April, 2017 8130628083 (used by Monica) 9836362166 (used by Santosh) 2 January, 2017 to June, 2017 9867839225 (used by Monica) 9821710875 (used by Mayur Mehta) 107 January, 2017 to June, 2017 9821710875 (used by Mayur Mehta) 9867839225 (used by Monica) 203 January, 2017 to May, 2017 9867839225 (used by Monica) 9619684111 (used by Mayur Mehta) 41 January, 2017 to May, 2017 9619684111 (used by Mayur Mehta) 9867839225 (used by Monica) 47 Page 33 of 139 M/s. Yash International SCN No. 07/2022-23 dt. 29.04.2022 NOTA 459- CIONO. KOL/CUS/A&A/Pr. COMMISSIONER/ADJN/16/2024 March, 2017 to June, 2017 9867839225 (used by ....