9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellant misdeclared the goods and value. Therefore, the adjudicating authority re-determined the value and confirmed the differential duty amounting to Rs. 15,51,551/- along with interest and penalty. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire case was made out on the basis of a statement of Shri K. Sathyanarayana, agent of the foreign supplier, who has expired. It is also contended that the appellant requested for cross-examination of the concerned officers, author of the e-mail of the foreign supplier and other persons, which was totally denied. It is also contended that on similar situation, the Tribunal in the case of another importer namely M/s. Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the appellant by the Malaysian seller through Shri Sathyanarayana) and an e-mail (which was addressed to Shri Sathyanarayana by one Shri Rajesh of the Malaysian supplier). With the death of Shri Sathyanarayana, the affected party, namely, the appellant is legitimately in search of somebody to disprove the incriminating statement of Shri Sathyanarayana and the incriminating documents recovered from his laptop. In other words, the appellant looks forward to cross-examination of somebody, who is yet to be named by them. The fact remains that cross-examination was disallowed by the Commissioner. Again, it is the appellant's grievance (the veracity of which cannot be ruled out at this stage) that he was made to make self-incriminating stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r all the above reasons, we have no option but to direct the learned Commissioner to pass de novo order of adjudication in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, we set aside his order and allow this appeal by way of remand. The learned Commissioner shall pass a speaking order in adjudication of the dispute after giving the party a reasonable opportunity of (a) filing final reply to the show-cause notice; (b) cross-examining those DRI officers who recorded the statements in question; (c) cross-examining such other person in India as the appellant may show, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, to be competent to prove or disprove any of the statement of late Sh. Sathyanarayana; and (d) being personally he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
