9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 421 - HC - CustomsPenalty u/s 112(a) of the CA, 1962 - allegation pertains to the genuinity and legality of the DEPB licence - cross-examination - Held that - the petitioner cannot insist upon the cross examination of the Investigating Officers - the petitioner would state that he had only dealt with the DEPB scripts and purchased the same from Mr.Satish Mohan Agarwal, New Delhi and he is no way connected with the allegations made in the SCN - petition dismissed.
Issues:
Impugned communication from Appraiser regarding cross-examination of DRI officer in Customs Act case. Analysis: The petitioner challenged a communication from the Appraiser related to seeking cross-examination of a Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officer in a Customs Act case. The petitioner, along with several other noticees, faced specific allegations in a show cause notice proposing penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The DRI officers, having nationwide jurisdiction, investigate cases that may lead to show cause notices. The DRI officers cannot be cross-examined in ongoing proceedings, as per the judgment. The court emphasized that the decision in Thilagarathinam Match Works Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Tirunelveli, was not applicable in this case, as the show cause notice was based on a report from an Energy Auditor, not an Investigating Officer. Therefore, the petitioner's request for cross-examination of the Investigating Officers was denied. The petitioner claimed innocence, stating involvement only in dealing with Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) scripts purchased from a specific individual and not connected to the allegations in the show cause notice. The court directed the petitioner to address this issue during the adjudication process by participating, submitting replies, and requesting relevant statements from third parties or co-noticees for objections. The writ petition was dismissed, with the condition that if the petitioner requires copies of statements from other co-noticees, only relevant ones to the petitioner's case would be provided. No costs were awarded in this judgment.
|
