Madras High Court
M/S.Dcw Limited vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 14 March, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 14.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
C.M.A(MD)No.124 of 2018
and
C.M.P(MD)No.1797 of 2018
M/s.DCW Limited,
Caustic Soda and PVC Divisions,
Sahupuram,
Thoothukudi District.
Tamil Nadu 628 229. ... Petitioner/Appellant
.Vs.
The Commissioner of Customs
Custom House, New Harbour Estate,
Tuticorin – 628 004. ... Respondent/Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 130(1) of the
Customs Act, 1962 against the Final Order No.41743/2015, dated 11.6.2015, on
the file C/0085/2007 of the Customs, Excise and Service Appellate Tribunal,
South Zone Bench, Chennai.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 07:05:33 pm )
For Appellant : Mr.T.Sakthikumaran
For Respondent : Mr.R.Nandakumar
Senior Standing Counsel for Customs
and CGST
JUDGMENT
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN., J
AND
R.POORNIMA.,J
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Final Order No.
41743/2015, dated 11.06.2015, on the file C/0085/2007 of the Customs, Excise
and Service Appellate Tribunal, South Zone Bench, Chennai.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the
learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Department and
perused the materials placed before this Court.
3.The allegation of the respondent/Department is that the appellant had
cleared three bill of entries through Thoothukudi Port in respect of Vinyl
Chloride monomer( in short called as ‘VCM’) during the month of April, 2004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 07:05:33 pm )
Alleging that there was mis-declaration and exemption from the Customs
Department, duty was claimed by the appellant and a show-cause notice was
issued on 24.12.2004 to explain as to why action should not be taken against him
for levy of penalty for using fake license and import of goods under three
disputed bill of entries. After show-cause notice, the order in original was passed
on 03.05.2005 holding that M/s.DCW Limited contacted Mr.Somanathan and Co
to negotiate for high dicount and the product and without verifying the
genuineness of the document stated to be DEFB licenses. They have purchased
goods and therefore holding that the document produced ie, DEFB licenses for
the import of goods in three bill of entries are false and not issued by ADGFT,
Kanpur. A duty of Rs.95,29,591/- under provision to Section 28(1) of Customs
Act was levied, apart from interest and penalty of Rs.5 lakhs. This was
challenged before the Appellate Authority and before Appellate Authority, it was
submitted that an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was not provided to
the assessee. The said appeal was taken up for consideration by the Appellate
Authority and it was remanded back for fresh hearing. After remand, the
Adjudicating Authority passed an order declining the request of M/s.DCW
Limited to cross-examine the witnesses. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 07:05:33 pm )
filed before the CESTAT. However, without considering the facts that an
opportunity to cross examine the officials, who have given the DEPB script.
CESTAT disputed the appeal. This order is under challenge in this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal.
4.The core issue in this matter is as to whether the DEPB script propertly
given to ADGFT are genuine in respect of disputed licenses.The department
claims that it is a fake license. Contrarily, the assessee reiterated that it is genuine.
It is necessary for the Adjudicating Authority to test the veracity of the
genuineness of the document. For that purpose, cross examination of the
signatory of those documents is necessary. Apparently in this case, even after
remand to the adjudicating authority by the Appellate Authority to give an
opportunity to cross-examination, the Adjudicating Authority has not given the
opportunity and hence, on the face of records, the order impugned suffers from
violation of principle of natural justice.
5.Hence the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed, the Final Order
No.41743/2015, dated 11.06.2015, on the file C/0085/2007 of the Customs,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 07:05:33 pm )
Excise and Service Appellate Tribunal, South Zone Bench, Chennai is set
aside.The order of the Adjudicating Authority also stands set aside. The
Adjudicating Authority is directed to give an opportunity to the assessee to cross-
examine the officials in whose name the DEFB licenses issued and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law. The order in original by the
Adjudicating Authority be passed, preferably, within a period of four months from
the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[G.J.,J.] [R.P.,J.]
14.03.2025
NCS : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
vsn
To
The Commissioner of Customs
Custom House, New Harbour Estate,
Tuticorin – 628 004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 07:05:33 pm )
Copy to
The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 07:05:33 pm )
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
R.POORNIMA,J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
and
14.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 07:05:33 pm )
