2017 (6) TMI 661 - AT - Customs

Natural justice - clandestine removal of instant coffee - Held that - the department has not been able to bring evidence on record which shows that the appellant or any of his employees is involved in fabrication of documents or have signed any of the forged documents used for import of goods - the proceedings were initiated against the appellant for revocation of CHA license and after detailed enquiry the adjudicating authority has exonerated the appellant by holding that there is no evidence against the appellant for abetting the importer - the denial of cross-examination of the witnesses by the Revenue is also bad in law - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against dismissal of appeal by Commissioner (A)
- Allegations of involvement in customs duty evasion and fabrication of documents
- Violation of principles of natural justice
- Denial of cross-examination rights
- Interpretation of evidence and legal precedents

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore challenged the dismissal of the appellant's appeal by the Commissioner (A) regarding allegations of involvement in customs duty evasion and fabrication of documents. The case involved M/s. Sai Ganesh Forwarders (SGF) facilitating the clearance of instant coffee extract without proper documentation. The appellant argued violations of natural justice and lack of evidence against them. The appellant emphasized the absence of a service agreement with M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. or SGF for clearance or document fabrication. Legal precedents like R.L. Toshniwal Vs. CC, Mumbai were cited to support the appellant's position.

The appellant contended that the impugned order did not consider the evidence or comply with natural justice principles. They highlighted that there was no direct involvement in document forgery or clearance of the disputed consignment. The appellant's CHA license revocation proceedings were also mentioned, where exoneration was granted due to lack of evidence. The Tribunal noted the absence of proof implicating the appellant in document fabrication and the previous exoneration in CHA license revocation proceedings. The denial of cross-examination rights was deemed unlawful, referencing the case of Gautam Pukhraj Bafna Vs. CC, Mumbai.

The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and legal precedents, found the impugned order unsustainable. It concluded that there was insufficient evidence linking the appellant to document forgery or clearance irregularities. Citing the Chakreshwari Shipping Agency P. Ltd. case, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of evidence and due process in penalty imposition. The denial of cross-examination rights was also highlighted as a legal flaw. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appellant's appeal with any necessary consequential relief. The judgment was delivered on 08.06.2017 by S.S. Garg, Judicial Member of the Tribunal.