2010 (11) TMI 335 - HC - Customs

Anti-Dumping Duty - Evasion of duty - Demand - Misdeclaration - Hon ble Apex Court particularly in the case of CCE v. Duncan Agro Industries reported in (2000 -TMI - 45477 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) holding that the confession statement recorded by the Customs Officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962 without complying with Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is admissible in evidence the appellant cannot be allowed to claim for the cross-examination of witnesses - Appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against misdeclaration of net weight and evasion of Anti-Dumping Duty.
2. Jurisdiction of writ court under Article 226 when alternative appeal remedy is available.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice by denying cross-examination.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant imported goods from China through Tuticorin Port, misdeclaring the net weight to evade Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD). The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) found the misdeclaration, leading to a demand for Rs. 1,57,82,914/- as ADD evasion. The Commissioner of Customs confirmed the duty amount, and the appellant challenged the order seeking quashing and cross-examination rights.

Issue 2:
The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, stating the appeal under Customs Act Sections 7B or 7-I should be pursued before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The appellant contended that violation of natural justice allows invocation of Article 226. However, the respondent argued against the writ appeal, citing the availability of an effective appeal remedy at CESTAT.

Issue 3:
The appellant claimed denial of natural justice due to the rejection of cross-examination rights. The appellant argued that cross-examination is crucial for fair proceedings. The respondent opposed, citing precedents where denial of cross-examination did not violate natural justice, especially in cases involving confession statements binding the accused.

The High Court found the appellant's misdeclaration of net weight evident, leading to ADD evasion. The Court upheld the Single Judge's decision, stating the appeal remedy under the Customs Act should be pursued at CESTAT. The Court also rejected the appellant's claim of denial of natural justice, emphasizing the systematic misdeclaration by the appellant and the sufficiency of evidence without the need for cross-examination. The judgment highlighted the appellant's confession and his awareness of duty obligations, concluding that the appeal lacked merit and dismissing it.