ARUN GUPTA Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THE appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/ - under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant along with other co -noticees, who are penalized in the present proceedings, entered into a conspiracy and prepared certain documents showing export of goods and bank realization certificate, which was submitted to DGFT's office and on the basis of those forged documents this DEPB licences were obtained and the licences were sold, which were used for import of goods duty free. The co - notices made detailed statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, stating the role of the appellant. On the basis of the statement and other evidence on records the adjudicating authority imposed penalty on the appellant and other co -noticees. The only contention of the appellant is that the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, whose statements were relied upon by the adjudicating authority was not granted. Hence, the impugned order is passed in violation to the principles of natural justice. The appellant relied upon the decision in the case of Videocon International Ltd. v. CC, (Imports), Mumbai as reported in, 2010 (250) ELT 553 and Orient Enterprises v. CC, Cochin reported in : 1986 (23) ELT 507.

(3.) WE find that the statement of co -noticees recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962 are in details whereby it is admitted that the appellant along with co -notices submitted forge documents to obtain DEPB licence. The statements are admissible in evidence as per the decision and Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the revenue. The conduct of the present appeal is that he never appeared before the investigating authority in spite of summons he never filed any reply to the show cause notice issued in July 2002. The statements of co -noticees were not retracted.