W.P. Nos. 23984-23986 of 2015 and M.P. Nos. 1 to 1 of 2015. Case: Vijayaraj Surana Vs Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-III. Chennai (Madras) High Court CEGAT & CESTAT Cases

Case NumberW.P. Nos. 23984-23986 of 2015 and M.P. Nos. 1 to 1 of 2015
Party NameVijayaraj Surana Vs Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-III
CounselFor Appellant: Shri S. Murugappan, Counsel and For Respondents: Shri K. Mohana Murali, Central Government Standing Counsel
JudgesT.S. Sivagnanam, J.
IssueCustoms Act, 1962 - Section 108
Citation2016 (340) ELT 308 (Mad)
Judgement DateJune 27, 2016
CourtChennai (Madras) High Court CEGAT & CESTAT Cases

Order:

  1. Heard Mr. S. Murugappan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. K. Mohana Murali, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and with the consent of learned counsel appearing on either side, these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.

  2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 23984 of 2015 is the Managing Director of M/s. Surana Corporation Limited and the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 23985 & 23986 of 2015 are the employees of the said Company. The petitioners have come forward with these writ petitions for quashing the order passed by the respondent dated 21-7-2015 and to direct the respondent to permit them to cross-examine all the three witnesses namely Mr. Vadiga Sathyanarayana, Mr. P. Balaji and Mr. Santhoshishwar Chandan Shive.

  3. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) have seized 8 pieces of Gold Bars from one Vadiga Sathyanarayana. Based on the seizure, enquiries were made with M/s. SLN Securities and Forex Private Limited, Sowcarpet, Chennai; documents were seized; statements were recorded from the Director, wherein it has been stated that the Gold Bars were purchased from M/s. Surana Corporation Ltd., of which the petitioner in W.P. No. 23984 of 2015, is the Managing Director. Based on the said statement, DRI caused an inspection on the business premises of M/s. Surana Corporation Ltd., made further enquiries and statements were also recorded from their employees. Subsequently, show cause notices were issued to the petitioner in W.P. No. 23984 of 2015, in the capacity of the Managing Director of the Company and to the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 23985 and 23986 of 2015, who are employees of the said Company, calling upon them to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed and the show cause notices were answerable to the respondent. On receipt of the show cause notices, the petitioners requested permission to cross-examine the aforementioned three persons, from whom statements have been recorded by the DRI. However, by letter dated 7-7-2015, the respondent intimated that the petitioners have not specified the point in respect of which, they wanted cross-examination of those three persons and it was further stated that the statements given by those three persons have been voluntarily based on evidence under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, the question of affording an opportunity to cross-examine cannot be permitted. Subsequently, the petitioners sent letter...

To continue reading

Request your trial