Page 218 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

656 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

(xx) Sanjay Shah v. Commissioner of Customs - 2011 (264) E.L.T. 211
(Mad.);
(xxi) Tamilnadu Tobacco Ltd. v. Union of India - 1992 (57) E.L.T. 51
(Mad.);
(xxii) Telestar Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. Special Director of Enforcement - 2013
(289) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.);
(xxiii) A.L. Jallaludeen v. Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate, Chen-
nai - 2010 (261) E.L.T. 84 (Mad.);
(xxiv) Vivek Nand Sethi v. Chairman of J&K Bank and Others - 2005 (5) SCC
337.
27. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the peti-
tioner and the respondents. I have also perused the show cause notice and doc-
uments filed along with the writ petition.
28. From the overall facts and circumstances of the present case it is
noted that it was a simple case of undervaluation of goods by the petitioner.
29. Therefore, statements were recorded from the petitioner’s proprie-
tor, his brother namely the 2nd petitioner, from 2 employees of the 2 CHA’s of
the petitioner.
30. They appear to have confirmed that there was variance between the
value declared in import invoice and invoices in the case of contemporaneous
import.
31. Statements obtained under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 are
merely intended to facilitate investigation into alleged evasion of Customs duty
for the purpose of adjudication under the aforesaid Act.
32. The culmination of the investigation may not only result in issuance
of a show cause notice under Section 28 to demand Customs duty short-paid or
short levied but also for confiscation, fine, penalty under Section 124 of the Cus-
toms Act, 1962.
33. Depending upon the gravity of the offence committed by a person,
a criminal prosecution are initiated.
34. Though it was submitted that the statements recorded from the pe-
titioners were retracted, I do not find any material on record.
35. Neither the petitioner nor the respondents have filed any of the
statements of the persons recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962
nor the letter of retraction.
36. Since the primary purpose of obtaining statement under Section 108
of the Customs Act, 1962 was for investigation and not for obtaining confessional
statements/admission of liability, the respondents were asked to find out wheth-
er they could proceed with the show cause proceedings based on evidence gath-
ered without placing primary reliance on the statements recorded from any of
the three persons. Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent has filed a copy of let-
ter dated 7-1-2020 received by him.
37. In the said letter it has been stated that “The statements tendered by
the two CHA person also supports the fact that there is nothing stated by them against
the noticee as a matter of their own personal knowledge but only what comes as a result
on comparing the values declared in invoices of the noticee and values declared in the
invoices/import data of other importers for import of same goods from the same supplier

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  218