TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred the request of the appellant for cross examination of the witnesses in his order. In the facts of the present case, the appellant has not given any inculpatory statement and not admitted the allegation made against him - For imposition of penalty against the appellant, the sole reliance was made on the statements of 3rd parties. In such a situation, it is incumbent on the adjudicating to allow the cross examination of the witnesses as mandated under Section 135 of Customs Act, 1962. We find that the adjudicating authority surprisingly neither allowed the cross examination nor even whisper in the impugned order to reject the request for cross examination made by the appellant. Therefore, the order of the adjudicating authority is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that entire allegation against the appellant was made on the basis of some statements of Shri K.V. Venugopal of M/s. Excel India Pvt. Ltd. and Shri R. Jayachandran of M/s. Cafco Freight Systems Pvt. Ltd. who have narrated the involvement of Shri Rajesh Jain in the imports and also had identified his photographs. He submitted that there is no admission by the appellant in his statement that the entire case was made out on the basis of statements made by 3rd parties; for this reason, the appellant have asked for cross-examination of the persons who have given statements against the appellant; but the adjudicating authority had not considered their request. He further submitted that there is no evidence that the appellant was involved in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, M/s.Excel India Pvt. Ltd. and Shri R. Jayachandran, M/s. Cafco Freight Systems graphically narrate the involvement of Shri Rajesh Jain in the imports and also have identified the photograph. I also take notice that from the telephone bills recovered from the premises of M/s. Arihant IT Solutions, Chennai and admittedly used by Shri Rajesh Jain, the telephone numbers of Shri Bethusamy; both his office numbers and mobile numbers as well as the phone numbers of M/s. Excel India, Chochin and KPN Travels India Ltd. are prominently figuring, which corroborates the facts stated by the witnesses. 4.2. From the above para, it is clear that Shri Rajesh Jain has not made any implicatory admission in his statement and the adjudicating authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order to reject the request for cross examination made by the appellant. Therefore, the order of the adjudicating authority is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. We are, therefore, of the view that the entire case needs to be reconsidered only after conducting cross examination of the witnesses whose statements were used against the appellant for imposition of penalty. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order keeping our above observation in mind. It is needless to say that the appellant shall be given sufficient opportunity of personal hearing and for making their submissions in their defence. The appeal is allowed by way of remand to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
