TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for the appellants and Shri Mewa Singh, ld. SDR represented the respondent Commissioner. 3.Brief facts are: Shri Sandeep Sood, is the proprietor of M/s. Rattan Road Lines, with its headquarters at Indore and branch office at various other places. Acting on intelligence that a truck bearing registeration No. NLO 5A 1865 coming from Nepal containing ball bearings of foreign origin had unloaded the said goods at the godown of M/s. Rattan Road Lines at New Kabadkhana at Bhopal on 13-9-96, the said premises were searched by the Customs Officers. The person incharge of the godown, Shri Ramashankar Dubey was interrogated on the spot and statement recorded from him. During the personal search of Shri Ramashankar Dubey, three bunches of keys were recovered from his pant pocket. He explained that one of the bunches of keys related to the office and the other bunch of keys was of the godown and the third bunch of keys was that of the office almirah and locker. On interrogation, he deposed that 230 gunny bags containing ball bearings were kept in the godown. However, he could not produce any valid duty paying documents relating to the said ball bearings. He disclosed that the documents whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unloaded in front of his office and transferred to other branches and sent to Delhi on instructions from Harbans Singh; that ball bearings started coming from Nepal at regular intervals and these were disposed of by him on instructions from Harbans Singh. As on 5-8-96, the date of seizure, he had handed over 80 consignments, some of which were recorded by him in the note book marked as Annexure 'A'. Shri Ramashankar Dubey also stated that Shri Harbans Singh had told him that the said goods came from outside Nepal and were manufactured in China and therefore the goods did not have any Bill of Entry or any other documents. Harbans Singh had also instructed him that while despatching the goods the original description of the goods should not be mentioned in the documents for further transportation. The drivers had also told Ramashankar Dubey that the goods were brought from Nepal. On 12-9-96, when truck bearing registeration No. NLO 5A 1865 containing 230 packages of ball bearings and other packages had been brought, driver Manta had informed that he had brought these ball bearings from Nepal. Shri Ramashanakar Dubey on instructions obtained from Harbans Singh had unloaded the ball b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the witness who had given the statements in spite of the request made by the appellants. He submitted that the denial to appellant of an opportunity of cross-examination the witnesses would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. Reliance was placed on V.K. Soni v. Commissioner reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 520 (Trib.). He also submitted that statements of co-accused cannot be relied on for imposing penalty and relied on the Tribunal's decision in Sadhan Chandra Mallick v. Collector of Customs (Preventive) [1993 (66) E.L.T. 112 (Tri.)]. 9.Ld. SDR reiterated the findings in the impugned order and submitted that the statements given by the various persons showed that Shri Murari Lal Gupta, resident of Indore (as well as Nepal) had masterminded the smuggling operations of ball bearings and he was supported in his activities by Shri Binod Singh of Kisanganj, Shri Sandeep Sood and Shri Gurmeet Singh, Sitaram, Dhiren, Prety Gupta, Ramashankar Dubey, Shukhdev Singh, Lalan Prasad, Liyakat Shah and others. Shri Liyakat Shah had also gone into absconding and did not participate in the proceedings. 10.As regards Shri Sandeep Sood, in his reply to the show cause notice, he h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unity for cross-examination should have been extended to the assessee. We also note that in the said case the request was for cross-examination of co-noticees who had given statements implicating the assessee. In the instant case the cross-examination sought by the appellant was of seizing officers and not co-noticees who had given statements implicating the appellant. In the Orissa High Court judgment in Ram Kishan Agarwala v. CCE [1981 E.L.T. 217 (Orissa)] refusal of opportunity to cross-examine the witness, who effected the seizure of silver was held to amount violation of principles of natural justice and the stand that the opinion of the adjudicating officer would be final as to what would be relevant for the defence of the assessee, was not sustainable in law. The said case apparently supports the contention of the appellant that failure to allow cross-examination of seizing officers would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. In the Tribunal judgment in Navnit Shah v. Collector of Customs [1993 (67) E.L.T. 426] the Tribunal had held that the adjudicating officer should have stated the reasons for not allowing the witnesses to be cross-examined. In the absence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nation of the seizing officers did not amount to any failure of principles of natural justice and in view of the detailed reasons given by the adjudicating officer for rejecting the said request, it cannot be said that he had arbitrarily dismissed the prayer for cross examination of the seizing officers. 14.In the above view of the matter we do not find that the failure to cross examination of the seizing officer has resulted in any mis-carriage of justice or contravention of the principles of natural justice as far as appellants Shri Sandeep Sood is concerned. Further having regard to the fact that there is no dispute that the smuggled goods were found in the godown which has been taken in the name of Rattan Road Lines owned by Shri Sandeep Sood and the detailed corroborative statements of Shri Ramashankar Dubey implicating Shri Sandeep Sood in the smuggling operations, the imposition of penalty on him does not warrant interference. His connivance in storing and handling of smuggled goods is fully established. However, since the evidence on record does not show Shri Sandeep Sood as the owner of the goods, the penalty on him is reduced from Rs. 50 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs. His appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
