Page 211 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] JET UNIPEX v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI 649

91. The 1st respondent is therefore directed to pass appropriate orders
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to pay the amounts that are due to the 3rd
and the 4th respondents.
92. This writ petition stands disposed with the above directions. No
cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 649 (Mad.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. Saravanan, J.
JET UNIPEX
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI
W.P. No. 5233 of 2016 and W.M.P. No. 4600 of 2016, decided on 19-5-2020
Evidence - Cross-examination - Request for cross-examination of
officers, denial of - Petitioner submitting statements of petitioner’s proprietor,
his brother and 2 employees of CHA’s of petitioner obtained under coercion
and threat - HELD : Certain statements of petitioners seems to indicate admis-
sions regarding undervaluation and cash transactions in past to evade Customs
duty - Also, several documents recovered during course of investigation which
form basis of proposals in show cause notice - Confirmation of demand solely
based on statements recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 would
require cross-examination by petitioner - However, if such statements merely
intended for corroboration of independent evidence, cross-examination need
not be allowed - Therefore, 1st respondent to decide whether statements rec-
orded to be solely relied for confirming proposed demand or relied for mere
corroboration of independent evidence gathered during investigation - Guide-
lines of Supreme Court in D.K. Basu [(1997) 1 SCC 416)] not violated particu-
larly in light of absence of any material records/documents to substantiate that
threat or coercion exercised on petitioners when statements were recorded - As
no documents produced to substantiate that statements recorded subsequently
retracted by petitioners, petitioner’s request cannot be acceded to - Further,
petitioners not arrested or detained but merely summoned under Section 108
ibid to record evidence and to produce documents for making enquiry under
the Act - In case primary reliance to be placed on statements of 2 employees of
2 CHA’s for passing adjudication order, 1st respondent shall issue suitable
summons for cross-examination by petitioner before passing such order - Arti-
cle 226 of Constitution of India. [paras 41, 42, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67,
68, 69]
Evidence - Statements recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act,
1962 - Object of empowering officer of Customs Department to record evi-
dence under impugned Section 108 ibid is to collect information of contraven-
tion of the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 or concealment of contraband or
avoidance of duty of Excise so as to enable collection of evidence of proof of
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  211