9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s-examination, that would not detract from the complicity of the appellant which was otherwise evidenced from the material gathered in the course of investigation. The CESTAT also found favour with the conclusion drawn by the Commissioner that the persons who were sought to be cross-examined were all co-noticees and thus it would appear to be in their mutual interest and benefit of the co-accused not to respond to the notices issued to them. The CESTAT also noticed that the appellant had in his own statement admitted to his involvement in the attempted removal of goods on 28 July 2017. It also found no ground to interfere with the view taken by the Commissioner that merely because the appellant was not in Delhi on the relevant date, the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which connection was thereafter utilised for the purposes of clearance of goods. The principal allegation against the appellant and other parties was with respect to an attempt to remove imported goods on the basis of forged and fabricated gate passes, without filing the Bills of Entry and without payment of customs duty. 3. The first attempt to remove the goods from the warehouse is stated to have been made on 28 July 2017. The fake and fabricated gate passes, Bills of Entry was filed by M/s Shankeshwar Impex Pvt Ltd. During the course of investigation on 31 July 2017, it was further found that after the appellant and other parties failed to obtain the clearance of the imported goods, other documents were sought to be produced by M/s Shank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidences on record, independent of the statements made by such persons, which supports the allegation. Further, all the persons, whose statements are relied upon, are the co-noticees. Thus, their non-appearance for cross-examination is evidently in mutual interest and benefit of the co-accused, cannot be ruled out. Ld. Commissioner observed that Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Singh in his statement dated 02.01.2018, is in response to Question No. 5, wherein he had admitted that on being asked by Ms. Sonia of PRM International Hong Kong, (Cargo Consolidator), he agreed to do the customs clearance of the shipment in question for consideration of Rs. 750/- per kg. or about Rs. 7,00,000/-. Thereafter, he contacted Mr. Abhishek Mishra for removal from CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dhananjay Kumar Singh is liable for imposition of penalty under Section 111 (j) read with Section 112 of the Act and further, liable for penalty under Section 114AA of the Act for making arrangement and causing use of forged/fabricated gate pass. The residual penalty under Section 117 of the Act was dropped. 7. As would be manifest from the aforesaid findings, the Principal Commissioner of Customs, ACC Imports [Commissioner] essentially came to conclude that merely because the three witnesses had not turned up for the purposes of cross-examination, that would not detract from the complicity of the appellant which was otherwise evidenced from the material gathered in the course of investigation. The CESTAT also found favour with the conclusi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
