TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - R. Bhanumathi and T. Raja, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri P. Saravanan, for the Appellant. Shri B. Vijay Karthikeyan, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : T. Raja, J.]. - The appellant herein, after losing his legal battle before the learned Single Judge, has preferred the present writ appeal. 2. The appellant has been carrying the business of measuring tapes (hereinafter referred to as goods ) from China through the Tuticorin Port. The goods imported by the appellant attract Anti-Dumping Duty (hereinafter referred to as ADD ) and the ADD is leviable based on the net weight of the consignment imported by the appellant. The appellant had mis-declared the net weight of the consignment as 8350 Kgs in the B.E. No. 4464 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Customs/respondent herein is appealable under Sections 7B or 7-I of the Customs Act and the appellant had approached the writ Court under Article 226, without preferring an appeal against the impugned order, to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that when there is an effective appeal forum available to the writ petitioner/appellant herein under Sections 7B or 7-I of the Act, the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant advanced two fold submissions. Firstly, when there has been a violation of principles of natural just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion has been held that to be not a violation of principles of natural justice, by referring a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 646 (S.C.), wherein it is held that when a person seeks for cross-examination of witnesses as regards the place at which recovery was made, in view of the confession made by the said person, the same being binding upon him, failure to give him opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, would not violate the principles of natural justice. Further, it was held that the Customs Officials are not Police Officers, therefore, the confession, though retracted is an admission and very well binds the person concerned and on that basis, prayed for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Authority had already found that there was no need for the cross-examination of Clearing Housing Agent and Investigating Officers, holding that denying cross-examination would not violate the principles of natural justice. In the present case, the appellant being an importer adopted a systematic method of mis-declaring the weight to evade ADD and he himself admitted this practice in his statement dated 20-10-08 and 3-11-08. Further, the ADD was calculated based on the weight ascertained from the samples submitted by the appellant. Therefore, there is no reason to give an opportunity to the importer to cross-examine the persons and the question of giving an opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine the persons will not arise in this ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight ascertained from the samples submitted by the appellant only. 10. At this juncture, though it cannot be denied that right of cross-examination in any quasi-judicial proceeding is valuable right given to the accused/noticee, as these proceedings may be adverse consequences to the accused, the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CCE v. Duncan Agro Industries, reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 280 (S.C.), has held that the right of cross-examination can be taken away. In yet another case, the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 646 (S.C.), has again held that when the petitioner seeks for cross-examination of witnesses, who have said that the recovery was made from the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lying with Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is admissible in evidence, the appellant cannot be allowed to claim for the cross-examination of witnesses. Therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, complaining that the learned Single Judge had wrongly rejected the case of the appellant, to set aside the impugned order do not carry any merit. 12. In result, this Court, for all the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit in the writ appeal, dismisses the same. No Costs. 13. After we have passed the order, the learned counsel for the appellant requested the Court to grant time to the appellant to file an appeal. As directed by the learned Single Judge, effective forum being available to the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
