TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant at all to prove the case. By not following the procedure prescribed in section 138B, the Commissioner has rendered all the six statements (RUD- 4 to RUD-9) irrelevant to prove the case. The only other important document is the test report of the CRCL. Shri Singhal s assertion was that what was attempted to be exported was Mud Additive Chemical and according to the CRCL, it was urea. Therefore, if Shri Singhal wanted to cross examine the chemical examiner who had tested the sample and said that it was urea, it is but just and proper. However, the Commissioner denied cross examination. Once all the statements and the test report of CRCL are ignored, nothing survives in this case and the impugned order cannot be sustained. To sum up: (a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 25,00,000/- on Shri Manish Singhal each under section 114 and section 114AA. 1.4. Imposed penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on M/s. Amit Enterprises under section 114. 1.5. Imposed penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on M/s. Paras Enterprises under section 114. 1.6. Imposed penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on M/s. Vansh Enterprises under section 114. 1.7. Imposed penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on Shri Ravinder Pal Jindal, the CHA under section 114. 1.8. Imposed penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on Shri Dinesh Bharadwaj, the G-Card holder of the CHA under section 114. 2. Customs Appeal No. 648 of 2011 is filed by Shri Manish Singhal [Singhal] to assail the impugned order. 3. Customs Appeal No. 69 of 2012 is filed by Shri Dinesh Bharadwaj [ Bharadwaj ] to assail the penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 25 previous Shipping Bills, RUD-3 is the Panchnama, RUD-11, are copies of various summons issued, RUD-12 is a copy of another OIO dated 16.11.2010. All these are matters of record and are not disputed. 8. RUD- 2 is the test report of CRCL and RUDs 4 to 9 are statements various persons recorded by the officers. Based on the test report dated 11.5.2010 of the CRCLs the SCN alleges that what was attempted to be exported by Shipping Bill dated 19.4.2010 was urea. The other statements (RUD 4 to 9) have been relied upon to further buttress this case and to extend the allegations of unlawful export to 25 previous consignments. 9. Shri Singhal sought to cross-examine the chemical examiner of CRCL and also the other persons who made the statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder section 138B, they are not relevant at all to prove the case. By not following the procedure prescribed in section 138B, the Commissioner has rendered all the six statements (RUD- 4 to RUD-9) irrelevant to prove the case. 12. The only other important document is the test report of the CRCL. Shri Singhal s assertion was that what was attempted to be exported was Mud Additive Chemical and according to the CRCL, it was urea. Therefore, if Shri Singhal wanted to cross examine the chemical examiner who had tested the sample and said that it was urea, it is but just and proper. However, the Commissioner denied cross examination. 13. Once all the statements and the test report of CRCL are ignored, nothing survives in this case and the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
