1992 (5) TMI 132 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of principles of natural justice
2. Request for cross-examination of witnesses
3. Validity of test reports from IIT and ABS Plastics
4. Dispensation of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts
5. Remand of the matter for re-adjudication

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellants argued that there was a denial of principles of natural justice because they were not allowed to cross-examine witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the Revenue. The Tribunal acknowledged this concern, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in *Kalra Glue Factory v. Sales Tax Tribunal and Others* which emphasized that statements not tested by cross-examination cannot be relied upon for findings. The Tribunal concluded that the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses constituted a violation of natural justice principles.

2. Request for Cross-Examination of Witnesses:
The appellants had requested the cross-examination of several individuals, including the Investigating Officer of the DRI, representatives from M/s. Liladhar Passo Forwarders (P) Ltd., and experts from IIT and ABS Plastics. This request was initially acknowledged by the Collector's office, but the cross-examinations were not facilitated. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had a right to cross-examine these witnesses to challenge the evidence against them, particularly the test reports that formed the basis of the Revenue's case.

3. Validity of Test Reports from IIT and ABS Plastics:
The Revenue's case relied heavily on test reports from IIT and ABS Plastics, which concluded that the imported material was virgin ABS rather than recycled. The appellants contested these reports, arguing that the individuals who conducted the tests were not made available for cross-examination. The Tribunal observed that the Collector had justified the reliance on these reports without providing the appellants an opportunity to challenge them through cross-examination. The Tribunal found that the absence of cross-examination diminished the reliability of the test reports.

4. Dispensation of Pre-Deposit of Duty and Penalty Amounts:
The appellants sought to dispense with the pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts, arguing that the denial of natural justice warranted such dispensation. The Tribunal agreed, stating that requiring the appellants to deposit the amounts would result in undue hardship. Consequently, the Tribunal dispensed with the pre-deposit requirements for the duty and penalty amounts.

5. Remand of the Matter for Re-Adjudication:
Both parties did not object to the remand of the matter for re-adjudication. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the cases to the Collector of Customs, Kandla, with instructions to observe principles of natural justice. The Collector was directed to grant the appellants the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and provide a personal hearing. The Tribunal ordered that the re-adjudication should be completed within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that there was a denial of principles of natural justice due to the lack of cross-examination of witnesses. It dispensed with the pre-deposit requirements for the duty and penalty amounts and remanded the matter to the Collector of Customs for re-adjudication, ensuring that the appellants are granted the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and receive a personal hearing. The stay applications were allowed, and the appeals were remanded for further proceedings.