9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 103 - HC - CustomsPrayer for consideration of interim reply - authenticity of certificates of origin - The allegation is that the certificate has been obtained by mis-representation of facts - Held that - This issue will be adjudicated by the authority viz., the respondent, after completion of the cross examination of the persons from whom the department has recorded statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Hence, for such purpose, the direction as sought by the petitioner cannot be granted and it is directed that the respondent shall adjudicate the cases based on the oral and documentary evidences that may be placed before it - respondent shall have to take note of the Customs Tariff Rules, 1995 and examine whether it is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case - petition dismissed - matter on remand.
Issues:
1. Direction to consider petitioner's interim reply to show cause notice and verify certificates of origin. 2. Grievance regarding reliance on statements of third parties in the show cause notice. 3. Request for cross-examination of relevant individuals. 4. Concerns about the communication from the Adjudication Unit. 5. Interpretation of the communication and show cause notice allegations. 6. Adjudication based on oral and documentary evidence. 7. Liberty granted to file further objections/replies. 8. Reference to Customs Tariff Rules, 1995 and cooperation between contracting states. Issue 1: Direction to consider petitioner's interim reply and verify certificates of origin The petitioner sought a direction for the respondent to consider their interim reply and verify the authenticity of certificates of origin before adjudicating on the show cause notice. The court clarified that it cannot dictate the decision-making process but can intervene if errors are found. The petitioner emphasized the importance of the certificates of origin from Bangladesh to prove the product's origin and requested a positive direction to consider their interim reply. Issue 2: Grievance regarding reliance on third-party statements The petitioner raised concerns about the reliance on statements from individuals not directly related to them in the show cause notice. They argued that the respondent should not proceed with adjudication without considering the certificates of origin provided by the petitioner. Issue 3: Request for cross-examination The petitioner requested cross-examination of relevant individuals, which was accepted by the Adjudication Unit. The court noted that the cross-examination was scheduled, allowing the petitioner to attend and question the individuals involved. Issue 4: Concerns about communication from the Adjudication Unit The petitioner expressed grievances about the communication from the Adjudication Unit, alleging that it seemed to prejudge the issue. The respondent clarified that the communication merely reiterated the allegations from the show cause notice and did not represent a final opinion. Issue 5: Interpretation of communication and show cause notice allegations The court analyzed the communication and show cause notice allegations, noting that they were extracts of the allegations and not conclusive opinions. The court emphasized that the adjudicating authority would base its decision on the evidence presented, including the certificates of origin. Issue 6: Adjudication based on evidence The court directed the respondent to adjudicate the case based on oral and documentary evidence presented, ensuring a reasoned order in accordance with the law. The petitioner was granted the liberty to file further objections or replies to the show cause notice. Issue 7: Reference to Customs Tariff Rules, 1995 The court referenced the Customs Tariff Rules, 1995, highlighting the need for the respondent to consider these rules and their applicability to the case involving cooperation between contracting states regarding the origin of products. Conclusion The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of adjudication based on evidence and legal provisions. No costs were imposed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, concluding the legal judgment.
|
