M/S. Awin Exim Company vs Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla

(Arising out of OIO-KDL/COMMR/41/2006 dated 29.12.2006, passed by Commissioner Customs, Kandla)

M/s. Awin Exim Company : Appellant (s) Shri Subhash Choudhary

VERSUS

Commissioner of Customs, Kandla : Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Appellant (s) : Shri Hardik Modh, Advocate

For Respondent (s) : Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical)

1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Yes

CORAM :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 16.06.2015

ORDER No. A/10814-10815/2015 Dated 16.06.2015

Per : Mr. P.K. Das;

After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the appellants unit is situated in Kandla Special Economic Zone, Gandhidham. The appellant imported Sarees and Dupattas. It has been alleged that they overvalued the materials for extra benefit. A show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation of the goods and to impose penalty. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and imposed redemption fine and penalty. The main contention of the appellant is that they requested to permit cross-examination of the exporters and the Panchas. They have also requested to provide the copies of letter addressed to Dubai Customs by the Consul (Economic), Consulate General of India and other export documents to defend the case and to file reply. The learned Advocate submits that the adjudicating authority had not given any finding on denial of the cross-examination and providing the documents.

2. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. He submits that the Power of Attorney holder of the appellant Company in his statement had admitted the overvaluation of the goods and therefore, no cross-examination is required.

3. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vasudev Garg vs. Commissioner of Customs  2013 (294) ELT 353 (Del.) held that the statement against the assessees cannot be used without giving them opportunity of cross-examination of the deponent. In our considered view, the appellant should be given opportunity of cross-examination of the exporters and Panchas and documents should be provided in the interest of justice, otherwise, the adjudicating authority should give reasons thereof.

4. In view of the above discussion, we set-aside the impugned order. The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh, after following the principles of natural justice in accordance with law. Needless to say, the adjudicating authority shall give proper opportunity of hearing before passing order. Both the appeals are allowed by way of remand.

(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)

(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) ..KL

2