TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no major evidence other than the statements has been produced about the knowledge of the appellants about presence of the cigarettes in the container. It is on paramount importance that the statements are properly tested with cross-examination. Since Cross-examination is not granted the impugned order is set aside and matters are remanded for fresh decision after giving opportunity of cross examination to the appellants - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Customs Appeal No.11811 of 2018-SM, 12279 of 2018 and 12280 of 2018 - A/12184-12186/2021 - Dated:- 17-6-2021 - MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Sh. S.J Vyas Shri. R Subramanya (Advocates.) for the Appellant Sh. Sanjiv Kiner, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icks 16,20,000 3. The said ₹ 16,20,000/- cigarette sticks were not declared in the IGM and therefore the same were placed to under seizure. During investigation the statements of various persons were recorded. The primary evidence in the case is following statements:- (i) Statement of Shri. Ranjit Dhirendra Jha, proprietor of the firm M/s. Riya imports and exports in which name the goods for imported was recorded. He stated that he was not aware of any export and import related works. He stated that on advice of Shri. Pappu Jha who worked at Air Cargo, Mumbai, he opened a proprietorship firm in the name of Riya Imports and Exports. He stated that the Shri Pappu Jha has helped him in obtaining IEC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Harvard Global Logistics Limited was recorded wherein he stated that he received a copy of Bill Of Lading dated 12.08.2016 through E-mail on 13.08.2016 from Shri. Rajesh Gorde, Deputy Manager, Mumbai Head Office for filing of IGM. He stated that he sent the said Bill Of Lading details to vessal Agent Shri Prem Maheshwari of M/s. Samasara Shipping who filed the IGM on 15.08.2016 on the basis of given details. He also sent a copy of the said Bill Of Ladings to M/s. Saurashtra CFS for internal shifting of container from Terminal to CFS yard. (vi) Statement of Shri. Rajesh Narayan Gorde, was recorded on 08.09.2016 wherein he stated that he had received the Bill Of Lading dated 12.08.2016 through e-mail on 11.08.2016. He further stated that h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equired documents and details and also inquired about the Shipping Line charges. Shri Jatin Rathod enquired from him about one container of smuggles cigarettes that had been detected at Mundra and also enquired from him about the importer. He further stated that he came to know through news paper about the container containing smuggling goods detected in M/s. Saurashtra CFS was of M/s. Riya Imports and Exports. (viii) Statement of Shri Gambhirsing Chauhan was recorded on 16.09.2016. He stated that Shri. Jatin Rathod came in contact with him when he was security in-charge at Mundra CFS. Shri. Jatin Rathod contacted him telephonically in August, 2016 and met him at CWC CFS Gate on 12 th August, 2016 and asked for clearing of import Consig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent in live stock. When he wanted to take the money back from Shri. Hasan Kureshi, he was told that he will have to arrange money from Dubai and asked him to a accompany him to Dubai. He further stated that during the stay, in Dubai no money was returned by Shri. Hasan Kureshi. He further stated that Shri. Hasan Kureshi took him to meet a person name Shoaib who asked him about any contacts at Mundra Customs. He further stated that Shoaib asked offered Shri. Hasan Kureshi for Smuggling of cigarettes at Mundra port and Shri. Hasan Kureshi agreed. He further stated that Shri. Hasan Kureshi and Shoaib supervised stuffing of goods in said container. He further stated that he did not know Ranjit Jha of M/s. Riya Imports and Exports. He provided s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame was not allowed. Learned counsel argued that no reliance can be placed on the statements if cross-examination has not been allowed. Since it is seen that there no major evidence other than the statements has been produced about the knowledge of the appellants about presence of the cigarettes in the container. It is on paramount importance that the statements are properly tested with cross-examination.. 6. Since Cross-examination is not granted the impugned order is set aside and matters are remanded for fresh decision after giving opportunity of cross examination to the appellants. The appeals are allowed by way of remand to original adjudicating authority. (Pronounced in the open court on 17.06.2021) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
