Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.88 seconds)The Drugs And Cosmetics Act, 1940
Section 123 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Surjeet Singh Chhabra vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 October, 1996
18. Learned counsel of Shri Manish Bavishi that cross-
examination of Shri Parag Bhavsar, Director of M/s Palam
Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd, Kamlesh Bhalani& Rajesh Seth of M/s
Reliable Agency and Sandeep Gandhi of M/s Globe Pharma
was not allowed to him is also violation of Principle of Natural
Justice. We find that the persons asked for cross-examination
are co-accused in the subject case. Further, what was
confessed by Shri Manish Bavishi in his statement dated
20.02.2007 was corroborated by all the persons involved.
Therefore, we find that the adjudicating authority came to a
conclusion that the cross examination would have not served
any purpose and nothing new would have emerged out of such
cross-examination. We find that Apex Court observed in,
Surjeet Singh Chhabra Vs UOI 1997 (89) ELT 646 (SC), that
not allowing of Cross examination of witnesses where
petitioner has confessed, is not violative of principles of
natural justice.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 122A in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
M/S. Fortune Impex, M/S. Chawla ... vs Commissioner Of Customs, Calcutta on 3 July, 2001
7.3. On the allegation that cross-examination was not
granted, Learned AR submits that cross examination was
sought of the co-accused; confession by Shri Manish Bavishi
on 20.02.2007 was corroborated by all of them; there was
nothing new which could come out of cross examination; it was
held in Fortune Impex Vs CC Calcutta 2001 (138) ELT 556 (Tri-
Kolkata) (Affirmed by SC), that Cross examination not to be
allowed of all witnesses if no specific reason given; further it
was held in Surjeet Singh Chhabra Vs UOI 1997 (89) ELT 646
(SC) that, not allowing of Cross examination of witnesses
where petitioner has confessed, is not violative of principles of
natural justice; it was held in Kanungo & Co Vs CC Calcutta &
Others 1983 (13) ELT 1486 (SC), that Principles of natural
justice do not require that in every matter, the person who has
given information should be examined in the presence of the
Appellant or allowed to be cross-examined by the person
concerned in respect of the statements made before the
customs authorities.
Collector Of Customs, Madras And Ors vs D. Bhoormul on 3 April, 1974
7.4. On the issue of confiscability, of goods recovered
from the factory of M/s Macleod's and sale proceeds
amounting Rs.2,96,47,100, deposited by M/s Hetero Drugs Ltd
& Hetero Labs Ltd, Learned AR submits that once the main
accused confessed in his statement and co-accused have
corroborated and further evidence in the form of Invoices
issued in this regard are available, burden then shifts to the
accused to prove his counter; He submits that it was held in,
CC Madras Vs D Bhoormull 1983(13) ELT 1546 (SC) and Shah
Guman Mal Vs State of Andhra Pradesh 1983(13) ELT 1631
(SC), that the department is not required to prove its case with
mathematical precision; demonstrable degree is nothing more
than a prudent man's estimate as to the probabilities of the
case.
Shah Gumman Mal vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 February, 1980
7.4. On the issue of confiscability, of goods recovered
from the factory of M/s Macleod's and sale proceeds
amounting Rs.2,96,47,100, deposited by M/s Hetero Drugs Ltd
& Hetero Labs Ltd, Learned AR submits that once the main
accused confessed in his statement and co-accused have
corroborated and further evidence in the form of Invoices
issued in this regard are available, burden then shifts to the
accused to prove his counter; He submits that it was held in,
CC Madras Vs D Bhoormull 1983(13) ELT 1546 (SC) and Shah
Guman Mal Vs State of Andhra Pradesh 1983(13) ELT 1631
(SC), that the department is not required to prove its case with
mathematical precision; demonstrable degree is nothing more
than a prudent man's estimate as to the probabilities of the
case.
Sachidananda Banerjee A.C.C. Calcutta vs Sitaram Agarwala on 5 October, 1965
10. Regarding the submissions on behalf of M/s Hetero
Drugs Ltd and M/s Hetero Labs Ltd, Learned AR submits that
M/s Hetero Drugs Ltd and M/s Hetero Labs Ltd were not aware
of smuggled nature of the PBDs; Adjudicating Authority gave a
clear finding, at para 84.2, that M/s Hetero Drugs and M/s
Hetero Labs received PBDs directly from Mumbai through M/s
On Dot Courier, Mumbai; they were aware that the PBDs were
of Chinese origin and were not dispatched by M/s Palam
Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd from Mehsena, Gujarat; they had not
even asked for import documents, though being aware that
imported PBD require a licence; Shri Parag Bhavsar stated
that whenever there was any query on the quality of these
bulk drugs, M/s Hetero Drugs Ltd. and M/s Hetero Labs Ltd
used to deal with Shri Manish Bavishi for clarification; on
paper Shri Bavishi was not related to their transaction with
M/s Palam Pharma or M/s Reliable Agency; it indicates that
they are aware that the impugned goods are not legally
imported; he relies on the case of Sachidananda Banerjee, ACC
Calcutta Vs Sitaram Agarwala - 1999 (110) ELT 292 (SC) and
submits that for levy of penalty under section 112(b), the
words "reasons to believe" indicate the existence of reasonable
grounds; in this case there exists basic ingredient regarding
knowledge of nature of goods by these firms; therefore
imposition of penalty is justified.