2016 (12) TMI 1026 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty u/s 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 - penalty imposed based on the statements of Shri Krishna Pal Singh and Shri Goutam Prasad Jaiswal - request for cross-examination not considered - principles of natural justice - Held that - In the absence of any reasoning for denying the opportunity of cross-examination the case of Shri Prahlad Agarwal is required to be remanded back to the Adjudicating authority for making efforts to extend the cross-examination of the witnesses whose statements are relied upon by the investigation for penal action against the Appellant. Appeal of Shri Prahlad Agarwal is allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating authority to decide the issue afresh after extending cross-examination of the relied upon witnesses and also by giving an opportunity to the Appellant to explain his case - appeal allowed by way of remand. Imposition of penalty on other Appellant Shri Subhas Oraon - none appeared on his behalf - Held that - it is observed that he is not interested in pursuing his Appeal. Accordingly Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalties under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Request for cross-examination of witnesses.
3. Failure to cooperate with the investigation.
4. Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution.

Analysis:
1. The Appeals were filed against an Order-in-Original dated 18.12.2007 imposing penalties under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalties were imposed by the Commissioner of Customs(Prev.), West Bengal, Kolkata as the Adjudicating authority.

2. Regarding the Appellant Shri Prahlad Agarwal, the case was based on statements of two witnesses, Shri Krishna Pal Singh and Shri Goutam Prasad Jaiswal. The Appellant requested cross-examination of these witnesses, but the Adjudicating authority did not address this request. The Tribunal observed that without reasoning for denying cross-examination, the case needed to be remanded for the Adjudicating authority to allow cross-examination and provide the Appellant an opportunity to present his case.

3. The Adjudicating authority argued that Shri Prahlad Agarwal did not cooperate with the investigation and did not respond to the summons issued to him. However, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing the Appellant with the opportunity for cross-examination and explanation, leading to the decision to remand the case.

4. In the case of the other Appellant, Shri Subhas Oraon, who did not attend the hearing and did not request an adjournment, the Tribunal noted a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of Shri Prahlad Agarwal by remanding the case for cross-examination of witnesses and providing an opportunity for explanation. The appeal of Shri Subhas Oraon was dismissed due to non-prosecution.