BASUDEV GARG Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the order dated 15th March, 2010 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. In all these appeals, the common issue that has been sought to be raised by the appellants is that the appellants have made a request of crossexamination of the persons whose statements have been referred to in the show-cause notice dated 30th April, 2004 as also relied upon by the Commissioner in the Order-in-Original dated 30th November, 2005 as also by the Tribunal in its order dated 15th March, 2010 but that request has not been acceded to. The result being that the appellants have been deprived of their right to cross-examine the makers of the statements. Therefore, there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, it is contended that the statements, unless the exceptions carved out in Section 138 (B) of the Customs, 1962 are clearly made out, cannot be regarded as being relevant and therefore cannot form the basis of proving the truth of the facts contained in the statements.

(2.) In all these appeals except CUSAA No. 7/2010, an additional issue has also raised and that is with regard to the non-supply of the enquiry report conducted after the conclusion of hearing by the Srilankan authorities. Before we address these issues, it would be necessary to set out some facts.

(3.) The principle allegation against the appellants is that they imported Ball Bearings of Chinese origin but showed by them as having been imported from Srilanka in order to evade anti-dumping duty. Show-cause notices were issued to the appellants on 30th April, 2004. Those showcause notices contained references to several statements of various individuals. In the case of the appellant, Sh.Anil Goel, there is a list of the statements which had been referred to and relied upon in the show-cause notice and that appears in para 5 of the reply to the show-cause notice dated 05.06.2004. The said para reads as under:-