9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 206 - HC - CustomsViolation of principles of natural justice - petitioner's request for cross-examination rejected - rejection of declared classification in the relevant bills of entry - unflavoured supari (betel nut product) - APL supari (boiled betel nut product) - HELD THAT - It is recorded that the petitioner made a request for cross-examination of the auditors, assessing officers, officers who approved the assessment, the examining staff and the chemical examiner, who tested the samples before assessment. It is further recorded that no cogent reason was adduced for cross-examination. It is clear from paragraph 6 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA-II 2015 (10) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT that interference with denial of cross-examination, in that case, was on account of the fact that the statements of the witnesses, whom the assessee requested to cross-examine, was the basis of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out as to how the statements of the witnesses sought to be cross-examined form the foundation of the present order. The order impugned in this writ petition can be appealed against. The present writ petition was filed in the last week of April 2024. If the period of pendency of this writ petition is excluded, the petitioner should be permitted to prosecute a statutory appeal. The petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file a statutory appeal. If such appeal is filed within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the Tribunal is directed to receive and dispose of such appeal on merits without going into the question of limitation.
Issues: Challenge to order rejecting classification of goods, violation of principles of natural justice by denying cross-examination, grounds for challenging the order on merits.
In the present case, the petitioner challenged an order dated 23.01.2024 which rejected the declared description of goods as "unflavoured supari (betel nut product); APL supari (boiled betel nut product)" and classified them as "areca nuts split." This reclassification led to revised assessable values, imposition of customs duty, and penalty. The petitioner contended that the order violated principles of natural justice by rejecting the request for cross-examination. The petitioner also raised other grounds challenging the order on merits, although those were not deemed significant at that stage. The petitioner argued that the denial of the right of cross-examination rendered the order invalid. Citing the judgment in Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata - II and a Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court, the petitioner's counsel emphasized the importance of cross-examination. The petitioner pointed out that the report of the FSSAI favored their classification, but the order relied on other reports to reach a different conclusion. The court noted that the petitioner had requested cross-examination of various officials involved in the assessment process, but no cogent reason was provided for it. The order highlighted that all relevant documentary evidence had been provided to the petitioner, and the denial of cross-examination did not invalidate the order. Referring to precedents, the court emphasized that the right of cross-examination is not an absolute requirement and depends on the facts of each case. It was observed that the statements of witnesses, which formed the basis of the impugned order in the Andaman Timber Industries case, were not foundational in the present case. The court concluded that the petitioner could appeal against the order and directed them to file a statutory appeal within a specified timeframe. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within ten days. The Tribunal was instructed to consider and decide the appeal on its merits without addressing the issue of limitation. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
|
