Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14.4 The judgments cited by the Revenue above, including Paragon Steel, Stalin Joseph, Al Jalaludeen, and Thir'ven Steels Pvt. Ltd., including those of the High Courts relevant portions of which have been extracted above, support the proposition that denial of cross-examination does not vitiate proceedings where independent documentary and circumstantial evidence establish the contravention, and no demonstrable prejudice is caused to the noticees. These principles squarely apply to the facts of the present case, where the best evidence is available with the appellants themselves to prove their case. In such circumstances, and in view of the judicial precedents above, we are of the considered view that no prejudice has been caused to the appellants by denial of cross-examination, particularly when the documentary and circumstantial evidence independently establishes violation of the notification conditions. 14.5 As regards the reliance placed on decisions such as Laxmi Exports (supra) and Silverline Plastic (supra) for the proposition that utilisation through job workers constitutes utilisation by the importer, is not in dispute as a general legal principle. However, these decisions proceed on the foundational premise that the imported goods remained under the ownership, control, and supervision of the licence holder, and that the job workers acted merely as processing agents for utilising the imported goods on behalf of the importer. All of which are well documented. In the present case, the name and address of the so called job workers have not been endorsed on the licence. The contention that mere entrustment of goods to job workers does not amount to transfer is of no assistance to the appellants, as the facts on record establish that the goods were not under the control of the licence holder, and were in fact diverted and disposed of in violation of the actual user condition. Further the factual findings clearly establish that in many cases the so called "job workers" did not exist, further in case where some job workers exist, the goods were not under the effective control of M/s J.P. Enterprises, but were handled, routed, and disposed of through third parties, including M/s Amit Impex, under a pre-arranged mechanism. There is no documentary proof of the goods being 'utilised' by the "job workers", even though it could have been easily produced. Hence the goods cannot be said to be utilised on the account of the importer. Although the importer operating under the Target Plus scheme could neither transfer nor sell the licence or goods. Accordingly, the said judgments are factually distinguishable. Further, be that as it may be, Tribunal being the final fact finding authority we are unable to find anything in the process to show that the activities of the "job worker" by slitting paper rolls to a smaller size, involves manufacturing any product or part / accessories / components of that product as required by the Foreign Trade Policy to show 'utilisation' of the goods by the job workers.