Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
The Commissioner Of Customs ... vs M/S. Zeniak Innovation India Ltd. ... on 2 December, 2022
Form No. J(2).
Item No.8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
HEARD ON: 02.12.2022
DELIVERED ON: 02.12.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
M.A.T 334 of 2020
+
I.A. No.CAN 1 of 2020 (Old No.CAN 2290 of 2020)
I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2020 (Old No. CAN 2301 of 2020)
The Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Vs.
M/s. Zeniak Innovation India Ltd. & Ors.
Appearance:-
Mr. K.K. Maity
Mr. Tapan Bhanja
.........................for the appellant
Mr. Kaushik Dey
..........................for the respondent no.5
Mr. Shovendu Banerjee
Mr. Soumyajit Mishra
............................ For the respondent
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order
dated 5th November, 2019 in WP 17073 (W) of 2019. The learned
writ Court has set aside the order in original dated 14 th June,
2019 and directed the appellant to afford an opportunity of
cross-examination of the persons from whom statement has been
recorded and considered by the authority while passing the
order.
2. It is a submission of Mr. K.K. Maity, learned counsel for
the appellant that the adjudicating authority has not relied
upon any statement of any of the persons, which was recorded
by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in course of
investigation.
3. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to
3 has drawn our attention to a few paragraphs of the order in
original, namely, paragraphs 48, 49 and 54. From the above
paragraphs it is seen that the stand taken by the appellant
before us stating that the authority has not relied upon any
of the statements appears to be incorrect. Interestingly in
paragraph 62 of the order while considering the request made
by the respondents for cross-examination of 18 persons, the
adjudicating authority states that he has not relied upon any
of their statements to arrive at a conclusion. However, this
finding recorded by the adjudicating authority is contrary to
what he has held in the aforementioned paragraphs, which we
have pointed out in those paragraphs. The statements have
been referred to and conclusion has been arrived at by the
authority against the respondents. Thus, going by what has
been stated by the adjudicating authority in paragraph 62, we
are of the view that if the authority does not propose to rely
upon any of the statement of those 18 persons, then obviously
a fresh order need be passed on the available material
excluding the statements of those 18 persons in the light of
the specific stand taken by the adjudicating authority that he
is not relying upon any of those statements.
4. For the above reasons, the appeal stands allowed in part
and the order passed in the writ petition is modified by
setting aside the order in original dated 14 th June, 2019 and
remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority to
pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law
without placing any reliance on the statements recorded from
those 18 persons. This direction be complied with within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the server
copy of this judgment and order after affording an opportunity
of personal hearing to the authorized representative of the
respondents/assessess. Consequently, the connected application
(IA No.CAN 2 of 2020 (Old No.CAN 2301 of 2020) also stands
disposed of.
5. No costs.
6. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied
for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance
of all legal formalities.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
I agree, (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
RAJA/Pallab, AR(Ct.)
