Page 223 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] JET UNIPEX v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI 661

case the decision of the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal can be
applied to the facts of the case.
69. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the request of the petitioner
for cross-examination of the officers of the 2nd respondent.
70. As indicated above, adjudication proceedings under the Customs
Act, 1962 cannot solely be based on the inculpatory statements of witnesses and
noticee alone. Such statements can be only used for corroborating the case which
the Department proposes to establish before the quasi-judicial authorities.
71. The department is bound to prove the case based on balance of
probabilities as per well-recognised principle of law in the case of departmental
adjudications.
72. It is therefore made clear that in case primary reliance is to be
placed on the statements of the 2 employees of the 2 CHA’s for passing adjudica-
tion order, the 1st respondent shall issue suitable summons for cross-
examination by the petitioner before passing such order.
73. In the light of the above discussions, I find no merits in the present
writ petition. I therefore, dismiss the above writ petitions with the following ob-
servation :-
(i) The 1st respondent is directed to complete the adjudication pro-
ceedings within a period of 9 months from date of receipt of this or-
der since the dispute pertains to import made by the petitioner be-
tween 2010 and 2013;
(ii) It is for the 1st respondent to take a call as to whether it proposes to
solely rely on the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Cus-
toms Act, 1962 for confirming the demand in which case, the 1st re-
spondent shall produce such persons for cross-examination by the
petitioners;
(iii) On the other hand, if reliance is placed on independent evidence
gathered by the officers of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent
need not issue summons to the persons whose statements were rec-
orded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
(iv) At the same time, the 1st respondent is not governed by strict rules
of evidence. The 1st respondent shall be governed by preponder-
ance of probability and Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 read with
Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.
(v) Needless to state, the petitioners shall be given an opportunity to
file their final reply.
(vi) Petitioner shall also be entitled to file their written representa-
tion/notes after the conclusion of the personal hearing by the 1st re-
spondent.
(vii) The 1st respondent may set time-limit for completion of adjudica-
tion proceedings with the aforesaid period.
74. The above petition stands dismissed with the above observation.
Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No cost.

_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  223