Page 214 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

652 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

(ii) the officers of the 2nd respondent who recorded statement from
these persons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on
which the above show cause notice was issued be produced for
cross-examination.
10. The petitioners through their Counsels also appeared before the 1st
respondent on 13-11-2015 and on 26-11-2015. On 26-11-2015, they requested for
certain relied upon documents which were thereafter furnished pursuant to a
communication dated 29-12-2015.
11. Since, the 1st respondent did not respond to the request to summon
the above named persons, for being cross-examined petitioner sent another re-
quest.
12. By the impugned communication dated 19-1-2016, the appraiser at-
tached to the office of the 1st respondent informed the petitioners that the state-
ment recorded from the above named persons were true and correct and that no
reasons were furnished for cross-examination and hence request cannot be ac-
ceded.
13. Accordingly, the petitioners were directed to appear for a personal
hearing before the 1st respondent on 29-1-2016.
14. It is in this background the present petition has been filed.
15. Both the respondents have filed their respective counters. The 1st
respondent in its counter placed a strong reliance has been placed on the decision
of the Supreme Court in Kanungo & Company v. Collector of Customs and Ors. -
1983 (13) E.L.T. 1486 and that of this Court in Mani Bhadras Trading Co. v. C.C. -
2010 (251) E.L.T. 194.
16. The 1st respondent has reiterated submission that no reasons have
been given for cross-examination.
17. The 2nd respondent in their counter have stated that the request for
cross-examination was merely intended to delay the adjudication of the show
cause notice and that the [xxx] demand proposed in the show cause notice was
based on independent documents, contemporaneous imports and was not based
on the opinion or statement of any persons or of the officers.
18. It is stated that only statements were recorded and comparable val-
ue of identical goods were shown to these persons and nothing more. It is there-
fore submitted that the petitioners were not entitled to cross-examine any of the
persons.
19. I have heard a Senior Counsel for the petitioner at length and
Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent.
20. The Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner was at pains to sub-
mit that the statements were obtained from the 3 named persons by the officers
of the 2nd respondent under coercion and threat. The statement obtained were
not voluntary in nature and therefore it is absolutely necessary that these persons
be produced for cross-examination by the petitioner for the petitioner to prove
their defence.
21. In this connection, reference was made to the following 3 judgments
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court :-
(i) D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Ashok K. Johari v. State of U.P. -
(1997) 1 SCC 416.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  214