Case Law Details
Jet Unipex Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court)
Conclusion: Adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 could not solely be based on the inculpatory statements of witnesses and noticee alone. Such statements could be only used for corroborating the case which the Department proposed to establish before the quasi-judicial authorities. The department was bound to prove the case based on balance of probabilities as per well-recognised principle of law in the case of departmental adjudications.
Held: Assessee had been issued with the show cause notice as to why the value of the goods imported should not be countermanded and value adopted in the notice should be adopted; and why differential customs duty had sought to be demanded from assessee; penalty should not be imposed under section 112 and 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Officer had made out a case of undervaluation of Plaster of Paris and allied goods imported by assessee between June 2010 and December 2013 by invoking Section 14 of the Customs Act read with Rule 9 and Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Assessee requested for cross examination of persons whose statements were recorded but Officer denied as it merely intended to delay the adjudication of the show cause notice and that the as demand proposed in the show cause notice was based on independent documents, contemporaneous imports and was not based on the opinion or statement of any persons or of the officers. It was held that statements were recorded from the assessee proprietor, his brother, from 2 employees of the 2 CHA’s of assessee. They confirmed that there was variance between the value declared in import invoice and invoices in the case of contemporaneous import. Statements obtained under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were merely intended to facilitate investigation into alleged evasion of customs duty for the purpose of adjudication under the aforesaid Act. Adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 could not solely be based on the inculpatory statements of witnesses and noticee alone. Such statements could be only used for corroborating the case which Department proposed to establish before the quasi-judicial authorities. Department was bound to prove the case based on balance of probabilities as per well-recognised principle of law in the case of departmental adjudications. It is for the Officer to take a call as to whether it proposed to solely rely on the statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 for confirming the demand in which case, the Officer shall produce such persons for cross examination by assessee and on the other hand, if reliance was placed on independent evidence gathered by the officers, the officer should not issue summons to the persons who statements were recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned communication dated 19.1.2016 of the 1st respondent. By the impugned communication, the 1st respondent has rejected the petitioner’s request for:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
