Case Law Details
Evidence Unavailable for Cross-Examination cannot be Treated as Admissible
In the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Deepak Dialani, adjudicated by CESTAT Mumbai, the primary issue revolved around the admissibility of evidence, particularly the lack of availability of witnesses for cross-examination. Here is a summary of the case:
Background: An investigation was initiated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Mumbai, based on information about an alleged racket involving smuggling computer parts and peripherals. Shri Deepak Dialani and others were accused of smuggling goods from Hong Kong, misdeclaring them, and selling them in the local market using fictitious company names. A show cause notice was issued, proposing demands of duty and penalties on Deepak Dialani and other co-noticees.
Cross-Examination and Evidence: During the denovo adjudication process, the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) ensured the provision of documents requested by the parties and cross-examination of witnesses. However, cross-examination was conducted for only four witnesses, and the others did not appear. The Commissioner disregarded the statements and panchnamas of those witnesses whose cross-examination could not be conducted.
Legal Principles: The Commissioner cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Gopal Saran Vs. Satyanarayana, which holds that evidence unavailable for cross-examination should not be treated as admissible. This means that if a person cannot be cross-examined, their statements should be ignored.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
