9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , MP-3 players of various brands like Sony, Pioneer, Kenwood, JVC etc. were being imported at deflated value through Kolkata Port (amongst others), the investigations were initiated by the department. As a result, the department was of the view that importers (i) M/s H.K.Impex (IEC: 0510026150), (ii) M/s Compact Impex(IEC: 0511055480) & (iii) M/s S.S.Enterprise (IEC: 0512027854)- partnership firms controlled by one Shri Jitin Arora were concerned with the imports of grossly undervalued products. Further investigations into the matter and the statements of Shri Jitin Arora, led the Revenue amongst others to one Shri Rakesh Magoo, the appellant herein, whose role was ascribed by the Revenue as a financer of the said under-valued imports. Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorized Representative on the other hand does not dispute the role of the appellant as that of the financer. However, he stresses upon the culpability of the appellant and reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. 8. We have heard both sides and perused the case records. It is noted that the appellant during the course of investigation before the DRI had admitted that he was the financer in respect of imports referred to above. However, the business of the said three firms i.e. M/s H.K.Impex, M/s Compact Impex & M/s S.S.Enterprises, was looked after by one Shri Jitin Arora, who was a partner of the firm M/s H.K.Impex along with Shri Harish Kumar Arora. Shri Jitin Arora was also a partner with Shri Gaurav Batra in M/s S.S.Ente ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g findings:- "From the facts stated in the foregoing, it appeared that Sri Jitin Arora Partner of M/s. H.K. Impex and M/s S.S.Enterprises as well as admittedly responsible for M/s Compact Impex and Shri Rakesh Maggo financer were the key persons who had planned the short payment of Customs duty by undervaluing the gods. Shri Jitin Arora and Shri Rakesh Maggo had admitted about the deliberate undervaluation in their statements dated 15.03.2013, 16.03.2013, 18.03.2013 and 19.03.2013 respectively recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962. Shri Jitin Arora stated that he looked after the business affairs of all these three companies and other Proprietor / Partners were in the name only and though the IECs of these companies were in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or intentionally involved in such malpractice of goods and subjected to penal proceedings under Section 112(a). 12. It is an undisputed fact that the department neither provided cross-examination of the co-accused as sought for by the appellant nor provided the basic import documents to the appellant for furtherance of his defence and while rightly going about redetermination of the transaction values in accordance with law failed to establish nexus of the appellant with the improper imports effected. The admitted role of the appellant being that of a financer of subject imports having voluntarily made good the differential duty of Rs.30 lakh cannot lead to conclude that the appellant had knowledge and intentionally indulged in such import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt inconsistency in the Tribunal's order had remanded the said matter to the Tribunal. Thus, under the circumstances that could be no reasoning for implicating the appellant in the present matter. Each case would need stand on its independent pedestal and separate set of facts and circumstances, applying the law thereto. The present case is undoubtedly a case of gross violation of natural justice and the findings of the lower authority at best are nothing but arbitrary and illegal, having been denied of all natural justice (supply of elementary documents like Bill of Entry for import of undervalued goods, Invoices tendered by the importer, no cross-examination afforded), as there is nothing on record but for the self-admitted position of be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejection of this plea is totally untenable. The Tribunal has simply stated that cross-examination of the said dealers could not have brought out any material which would not be in possession of the appellant themselves to explain as to why their ex-factory prices remain static. It was not for the Tribunal to have guess work as to for what purposes the appellant wanted to cross-examine those dealers and what extraction the appellant wanted from them. 7. As mentioned above, the appellant had contested the truthfulness of the statements of these two witnesses and wanted to discredit their testimony for which purpose it wanted to avail the opportunity of cross-examination. That apart, the Adjudicating Authority simply relied upon the price li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
