9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (4) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are taken up together and disposed of by a single order. The proceedings against the appellants were instituted by issue of a show cause notice dated 26-12-1991 inter alia alleging that the appellants namely M/s. Manjushree Minerals and M/s. Ritu Minerals imported Diesel Engines by fraudulently amending the list attached to the licence issued by the licensing authorities by incorporating the words `with or without gear and the proceedings culminated in the impugned order confiscating the Diesel Engines imported under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and permitting redemption of the same on payment of fine indicated in the impugned order besides penalty levied on the appellant, importers and also the Directors of the other C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said Basu, he was not made available for cross-examination. The ld. Counsel further submitted that even during personal hearing on 20th April, 1992, the said Basu was not available and a finding of the ld. Collector in impugned order that the appellant did not avail the right of cross-examination of the said Basu is not factually correct. It was submitted that Shri Basu was not available at all and the appellants did not give up the right to cross-examine. The ld. Counsel also made a reference to a specific ground in grounds of appeal in this regard which reads as under :- For that the ld. Adjudication Authority wrongly recorded that although the presence of Shri P.L. Basu was ensured by the department on 20-4-1992 the ld. Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of procedure. It was, therefore submitted that without the original list being made available for perusal of the appellant with opportunity to explain the same either by cross-examination of officers concerned in the license department or otherwise the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside on this legal ground. 6. Reference was also made by the ld. Counsel to the re-proceedings instituted in the Calcutta High Court subsequent to the passing of impugned order seeking of interim direction for the release of the goods and Shri Asthana, the ld. Counsel while made it clear at the outset that he was not relying upon the interim direction of the order in the Calcutta High Court for any relief pending appeal and only su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce. On going through the entire records, we find that in regard to a question relating to violation, reference is made and reliance is placed as a piece of corroborative evidence on the statement of the officer of Calcutta State Transport Corporation, Shri Basu dated 17-12-1991 and even though a specific request has been made by appellants for cross-examination of the said Basu, the same has not been given. We also note in this context that the basis of violation is not adopted on the basis of the statement of the said Basu and statement of Basu is only taken as a piece of a corroborative evidence along with other evidence. Shri Asthana at this stage intervened to submit that Shri Basu is only an officer in State Transport Corporation and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
