TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1464
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hem against various exporters, namely, Yashnavi Exports and Blue Sky Exports Pvt Ltd, who are the exporters herein. The said exporters were mainly engaged in the manufacture of Readymade Garments falling under chapters 61 and 62 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. As per the department, the said exporters have diverted their consignment intended to export from ICD, TKD to destination other than the destination declared in the shipping bills, in order to avail undue benefit of Focus Market Scheme (FMS), Special Focus Market Scheme (SFMS), Market Linked Focus M Product Scheme (MLFPS) and Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS) under chapter 3 of Foreign Trade Policy. The case of the department is that shipping bills used to file showing coun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded during the course of investigation is required the Examination-in-Chief is to be done first and thereafter cross-examination is required to be given to the appellant. As in this case, provisions of section 138B have not been followed, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. To support this contention, they relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Surya Wires Pvt Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of CGST vide Final Order Nos. 50453-50454 of 2025 dated 01.04.2025 and in the appellant's own case vide Final Order No. 50835-50836 of 2025 dated 04.06.2025.. 4. On the other hand, learned authorised representative for the department submitted that as the appellant did not ask for any cross-examinat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....termining whether there has been due compliance of Section 138C(4) of the Act, 1962 is concerned. The evidentiary value of such Section 108 statements, in any other proceedings, if any would have to be considered in accordance with law, including the compliance of Section 138B of the Act, 1962." 8. Therefore, the decision in the case of Sarad Chan Agrahari (supra) is not relevant to the facts of the case. 9. Further, I find that in appellant's own case, this Tribunal has examined the issue and observed as under: "9. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act can be considered as evidence under section 138B of the Customs Act. 10. In this connection,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustoms Act, the provisions of sub-section (1) of these two Acts shall apply to any proceedings under the Central Excise Act or the Customs Act as they apply in relation to proceedings before a Court. What, therefore, follows is that a person who makes a statement during the course of an inquiry has to be first examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority and thereafter the adjudicating authority has to form an opinion whether having regard to the circumstances of the case the statement should be admitted in evidence, in the interests of justice. Once this determination regarding admissibility of the statement of a witness is made by the adjudicating authority, the statement will be admitted as an evidence and an opportunity of cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....toms Act. The Courts have also explained the rationale behind the precautions contained in the two sections. It has been observed that the statements recorded during inquiry/ investigation by officers has every chance of being recorded under coercion or compulsion and it is in order to neutralize this possibility that statements of the witnesses have to be recorded before the adjudicating authority, after which such statements can be admitted in evidence." 12. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in Surya Wires, the statements made by the appellant and the exporters under section 108 of the Customs Act could not have been considered by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The finding that has been recorded by the Com....