Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 168 - CESTAT MUMBAIMis-declaration of import goods - woven fabric - cross-examination of employees - suppression of facts or not - entire case of the respondent Department is based on collection of samples from the appellant’s Warehouse on the basis of identification made by one employee Shri Rajbir Singh, who was not subjected to cross examination by the appellant despite it’s request for such cross examination - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact on record that goods were originally imported by another concern and the description of goods were mixed fabrics and it is at the instance of the appellant that goods were put to test for ascertainment of its description and classification, that was done before the goods were cleared for own consumption - No other relationship was established by the respondent Department to substantiate that the goods seized by the DRI was in fact related to the goods cleared to the appellant through the disputed Bill of Entry. Show cause notice reveals that DRI Officials made visual examination of goods and ascertained that they comprised of 7 different verities/types of fabrics. It is not understood as to why after such discovery, Customs Officials who drew the samples for first check examination were not examined and why reliance is placed on only examination if the appellant’s staff to find out the error in the First Examination Report - It is a settled principle of law that even in such situation, when two different opinions can be formed from contradictory evidence, the opinion that is favourable to the offender is to be accepted. There is nothing available on record to substantiate that the samples drawn by DRI Officials were the representative samples of the consignment cleared in the disputed Bill of entry except the statement of that Shri Rajbir Singh whose veracity is not tested through cross-examination nor any opportunity was provided to the appellant to falsify such statement - Under the circumstances, no credence can be attributed to such a statement to penalise the appellant with additional burden of duty liability penalty etc. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|