2021 (6) TMI 580 - AT - Customs

Smuggling - Cigarettes - charges based on statements - cross-examinations of statements not done - HELD THAT - The entire case based on primarily on statement. The charges have also been established on the basis of these statements. It is seen that all three notices have denied any knowledge of the transaction of presence of cigarettes in the containers. There is no specific primary evidence produced by revenue, except the statements, to establish that the notices were aware of the presence of cigarettes in the container - Since it is seen that there no major evidence other than the statements has been produced about the knowledge of the appellants about presence of the cigarettes in the container. It is on paramount importance that the statements are properly tested with cross-examination. Since Cross-examination is not granted the impugned order is set aside and matters are remanded for fresh decision after giving opportunity of cross examination to the appellants - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against imposition of penalty for dealing in imported goods/cigarettes.

Analysis:
1. The case involved appeals by individuals against penalties imposed for dealing in imported goods/cigarettes. The investigation revealed the presence of a significant quantity of cigarettes concealed in containers, leading to charges against the appellants.
2. Statements from various individuals were crucial evidence in the case. These statements included those of individuals involved in importing, clearing, and handling the goods, shedding light on the knowledge and involvement of the appellants.
3. The appellants denied any knowledge of the presence of cigarettes in the containers, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence beyond the statements to establish their awareness. The appellants requested cross-examination of witnesses, which was not permitted, raising concerns about the reliability of the statements.
4. Given the reliance on statements as the primary evidence and the absence of substantial corroborative proof, the tribunal emphasized the importance of subjecting the statements to cross-examination for proper evaluation.
5. As cross-examination was not allowed, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matters for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need to provide the appellants with the opportunity for cross-examination to ensure a fair and thorough assessment of the evidence.
6. The appeals were allowed for remand to the original adjudicating authority, highlighting the significance of procedural fairness and the right to cross-examination in determining the outcome of the case. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 17.06.2021.