- 75 -
example, Mr. Raja testified that he recognized a certain cash-
ier’s check payable to Macy’s. However, Mr. Raja later admitted
that, when he testified about that cashier’s check, he was making
an assumption that petitioner used that check to purchase certain
goods for resale from Macy’s. Mr. Raja testified that he made
that assumption because M.P. Electronics and petitioner had
purchased that type of merchandise from Macy’s on other occa-
sions. We also found Mr. Raja’s testimony to be vague and/or
inconsistent at times.
Mr. Syelsky’s Testimony
Although generally we found Mr. Syelsky to be credible, at
times we found his testimony to be inconsistent and/or evasive.
Mr. Vulis’ Testimony
Although generally we found Mr. Vulis to be credible, at
times we found his testimony to be general, vague, and/or
conclusory. In addition, we found Mr. Vulis’ testimony to have
been sometimes based on his general business practices with
petitioner, as opposed to his personal knowledge of the facts
with respect to a particular transaction or activity about which
he testified.
Mr. Dubrovsky’s Testimony
Based on our observation of Mr. Dubrovsky at the further
trial, including our observation of his demeanor, we did not find
him to be credible. We also found Mr. Dubrovsky’s testimony to
be general, vague, conclusory, and/or inconsistent in certain
material respects.
Page: Previous 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011