BASUDEV GARG Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
LAWS(DLH)-2013-4-321
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on
April 12,2013
BASUDEV GARG
Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SWADESHI POLYTEX LTD. V. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED TO]J AND K CIGARETTES LTD. V. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMAN EXPORTS LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
BAJRANG CASTINGS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. VS. COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX [LAWS(CE)-2015-7-3] [REFERRED TO]COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE, LUCKNOW VS. PREMIER ALLOYS LTD. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-346] [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI METAL VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-II [LAWS(DLH)-2016-2-307] [REFERRED TO]
GEE DIAMOND PVT. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T. [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-10-177] [REFERRED TO]
HIM LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. VS. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(DLH)-2016-2-180] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONERS CENTRAL EXCISE VS. KURELE PAN PRODUCTS P. LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2014-4-274] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIKH MOHAMMED AZAM VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(BOM)-2014-4-210] [REFERRED TO]
SAMPAD NARAYAN MUKHERJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2019-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
DEWAS FABRICS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE [LAWS(CE)-2014-11-30] [REFERRED TO]
INTER METAL TRADE LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2014-6-25] [REFERRED TO]
NAMAN GUPTA VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AIRPORT AND GENERAL [LAWS(DLH)-2024-1-115] [REFERRED TO]
SWIBER OFFSHORE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. COMMR. OF CUS., KANDLA [LAWS(CE)-2013-10-24] [REFERRED TO]
MULCHAND M. ZAVERI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2016-2-351] [REFERRED TO]
H.K. IMPEX PVT. LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2014-6-3] [REFERRED TO]
GOYAL TOBACCO CO. PVT. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAIPUR-I [LAWS(CE)-2014-8-84] [REFERRED TO]
FLEVEL INTERNATIONAL VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-113] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR VS. RAJASTHAN FOILS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-9-142] [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR FOUNDRY & CASTING LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RANCHI COMMISSIONERATE, RANCHI [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-3-30] [REFERRED TO]
SUNLAND ALLOYS AND ORS. VS. C.C.E. & S.T. [LAWS(CE)-2015-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
JAY BHAWANI METAL INDUSTRIES AND ORS. VS. COMMISSIONERS OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX [LAWS(CE)-2015-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
WELLSUIT GLASS & CERAMIC PVT. LTD. VS. COMMR. OF C. EX. & S.T., VADODARA [LAWS(CE)-2014-3-53] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMODGIRI PREMGIRI GOSWAMI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2024-4-85] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)These appeals are directed against the order dated 15th March, 2010 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. In all these appeals, the common issue that has been sought to be raised by the appellants is that the appellants have made a request of crossexamination of the persons whose statements have been referred to in the show-cause notice dated 30th April, 2004 as also relied upon by the Commissioner in the Order-in-Original dated 30th November, 2005 as also by the Tribunal in its order dated 15th March, 2010 but that request has not been acceded to. The result being that the appellants have been deprived of their right to cross-examine the makers of the statements. Therefore, there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, it is contended that the statements, unless the exceptions carved out in Section 138 (B) of the Customs, 1962 are clearly made out, cannot be regarded as being relevant and therefore cannot form the basis of proving the truth of the facts contained in the statements.
(2.)In all these appeals except CUSAA No. 7/2010, an additional issue has also raised and that is with regard to the non-supply of the enquiry report conducted after the conclusion of hearing by the Srilankan authorities. Before we address these issues, it would be necessary to set out some facts.
(3.)The principle allegation against the appellants is that they imported Ball Bearings of Chinese origin but showed by them as having been imported from Srilanka in order to evade anti-dumping duty. Show-cause notices were issued to the appellants on 30th April, 2004. Those showcause notices contained references to several statements of various individuals. In the case of the appellant, Sh.Anil Goel, there is a list of the statements which had been referred to and relied upon in the show-cause notice and that appears in para 5 of the reply to the show-cause notice dated 05.06.2004. The said para reads as under:-
"5. The above allegations against our client, Sh. Anil Goel are based on the testimony of the following witnesses recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 or certain documents obtained by DRI, during the investigation.
1. Statement of Sh. Ashok Pathak (Para 2 of SCN)
2. Statement of Shri. Dalbir Singh (Para 4 of SCN)
3. Statement of Shri. Sureshkumar, Driver of M.K. Transports (Para 5 of SCN).
4. Statement of Shri. Jaipal Singh, owner of the shop. (Para 7 of SCN).
5. Statement of Sh. Mukesh Kumar Gupta (Para 13 : 14/11/03 of SCN).
6. Statement of Shri. H.L. Arora (Para 15 if SCN).
7. Statement of Shri. Raj Kumar Parcha (Page 16 of SCN).
8. Statement of Shri. Ravinder Uniyal (Para 19 of SCN).
9. Statement of Shri. Dinesh Kumar, Driver (Para 20 of SCN).
10. Statement of Shri. Dalbir Singh, Driver (Para 21 of SCN).
11. Statement of Shri. Gulab Singh, Driver (Para 23 of SCN).
12. Statement of Shri. Gulab Singh, Driver (Para 23 if SCN).
13. Statement of Shri. Basant Sharma, owner of the truch (Para 24 of SCN).
14. Statement of Shri. Tutul Mondal, Driver (Para 25 of SCN).
15. Statement of Shri. Gautam Chatterjee (Para 26 of SCN).
16. Statement of Shri. Yusuf Khan, Driver (Para 27 of SCN).
17. Statement of Shri. Gajender Singh Uniyal (Para 28 of SCN).
18. Reference to DRI, Chennai letter dt. 14.11.2003 (Para 29 of SCN).
19. Statement of Shri. Mohan Lal Thapar (Para 31 of SCN).
20. Letter dt. 3.2.04 of Shri. Suresh Pal Gupta of Dubai (Para 32 of SCN).
21. Statement of Shri. Dilip F. Mehta (Para 34 of SCN).
22. Statement of Shri. Kamlesh Jain, Chennai (Para 37 of SCN).
23. Enquiries with Dept. of Commerce, DRI, Chennai (Para 37 of SCN).
24. Letter dated 8.03.04 from Asma Noor, Executive Secretary (Para 39 of SCN). 25. Statement of Shri. Kapur Chand (Para 40 of SCN)."
(2.)In all these appeals except CUSAA No. 7/2010, an additional issue has also raised and that is with regard to the non-supply of the enquiry report conducted after the conclusion of hearing by the Srilankan authorities. Before we address these issues, it would be necessary to set out some facts.
(3.)The principle allegation against the appellants is that they imported Ball Bearings of Chinese origin but showed by them as having been imported from Srilanka in order to evade anti-dumping duty. Show-cause notices were issued to the appellants on 30th April, 2004. Those showcause notices contained references to several statements of various individuals. In the case of the appellant, Sh.Anil Goel, there is a list of the statements which had been referred to and relied upon in the show-cause notice and that appears in para 5 of the reply to the show-cause notice dated 05.06.2004. The said para reads as under:-
"5. The above allegations against our client, Sh. Anil Goel are based on the testimony of the following witnesses recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 or certain documents obtained by DRI, during the investigation.
1. Statement of Sh. Ashok Pathak (Para 2 of SCN)
2. Statement of Shri. Dalbir Singh (Para 4 of SCN)
3. Statement of Shri. Sureshkumar, Driver of M.K. Transports (Para 5 of SCN).
4. Statement of Shri. Jaipal Singh, owner of the shop. (Para 7 of SCN).
5. Statement of Sh. Mukesh Kumar Gupta (Para 13 : 14/11/03 of SCN).
6. Statement of Shri. H.L. Arora (Para 15 if SCN).
7. Statement of Shri. Raj Kumar Parcha (Page 16 of SCN).
8. Statement of Shri. Ravinder Uniyal (Para 19 of SCN).
9. Statement of Shri. Dinesh Kumar, Driver (Para 20 of SCN).
10. Statement of Shri. Dalbir Singh, Driver (Para 21 of SCN).
11. Statement of Shri. Gulab Singh, Driver (Para 23 of SCN).
12. Statement of Shri. Gulab Singh, Driver (Para 23 if SCN).
13. Statement of Shri. Basant Sharma, owner of the truch (Para 24 of SCN).
14. Statement of Shri. Tutul Mondal, Driver (Para 25 of SCN).
15. Statement of Shri. Gautam Chatterjee (Para 26 of SCN).
16. Statement of Shri. Yusuf Khan, Driver (Para 27 of SCN).
17. Statement of Shri. Gajender Singh Uniyal (Para 28 of SCN).
18. Reference to DRI, Chennai letter dt. 14.11.2003 (Para 29 of SCN).
19. Statement of Shri. Mohan Lal Thapar (Para 31 of SCN).
20. Letter dt. 3.2.04 of Shri. Suresh Pal Gupta of Dubai (Para 32 of SCN).
21. Statement of Shri. Dilip F. Mehta (Para 34 of SCN).
22. Statement of Shri. Kamlesh Jain, Chennai (Para 37 of SCN).
23. Enquiries with Dept. of Commerce, DRI, Chennai (Para 37 of SCN).
24. Letter dated 8.03.04 from Asma Noor, Executive Secretary (Para 39 of SCN). 25. Statement of Shri. Kapur Chand (Para 40 of SCN)."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.