Page 213 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] JET UNIPEX v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI 651

REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri B. Kumar, Senior Counsel for B. Sathish
Sundar, for the Petitioner.
S/Shri S.R. Sundar and Sundareswaran, Standing
Counsel, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned communica-
tion dated 19-1-2016 of the 1st respondent. By the impugned communication, the
1st respondent has rejected the petitioner’s request for :
(a) cross-examination of the persons whose statements were recorded
under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 by the officers of the
2nd respondent; and
(b) the officers who recorded such statements.
2. The petitioners have been issued with the show cause notice dated
11-6-2015 to show cause as to why :
(a) the value of the goods imported by the 1st petitioner should not be
countermanded and value adopted in the notice should be adopted;
and
(b) why differential customs duty have sought to be demanded from
the 1st petitioner;
(c) penalty should not be imposed under Sections 112 and 114AA of
the Customs Act, 1962 on the 2nd petitioner;
3. During the course of investigation which preceded the issue of the
aforesaid show cause notice, the 1st petitioner had paid an amount of Rs. 45
lakhs as differential tax. The show cause notice seeks to appropriate the same
towards the differential duty proposed in the aforesaid show cause notice.
4. The above show cause notice was issued by the 2nd respondent Di-
rectorate of Revenue Intelligence after investigation.
5. During the course of the investigation, statements were recorded
from the 2nd petitioner on 18-12-2013; 20-12-2013 and on 17-12-2014. A statement
was also recorded from the proprietor of the 1st petitioner on 20-12-2013.
6. Apart from the above two persons, statement of the Branch Manager
of the petitioner’s Custom House Agent Shri C.D. Palani on 7-11-2014 and from
one Shri K. Sundaramoorty, the Managing Partner of M/s. Krishna Logistics
Chennai, another Custom House Agent (CHA) were recorded on 25-11-2014 by
the officers of the 2nd respondent.
7. It is in the course of the investigation, the petitioners deposited the
aforesaid sum of Rs. 45 lakhs in 2 instalments of Rs. 25 lakhs and Rs. 20 lakhs on
26-12-2013 and on 3-1-2014.
8. The 2nd respondent has made out a case of undervaluation of Plaster
of Paris and allied goods imported by the 1st petitioner between June 2010 and
December 2013 by invoking Section 14 of the Customs Act read with Rule 9 and
Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.
9. After the show cause notice was issued, the petitioners through their
Counsel filed a later dated 17-7-2015 and requested the 1st respondent to issue
summons to :-
(i) Shri K. Sundaramoorty, C.D. Palani and one Ayub Khan of M/s.
Junaid Plaster of Paris; and

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  213