2009 (8) TMI 1001 - AT - Customs

Natural justice - denial of cross-examination - Held that - Neither the inspection of documents was provided nor copies of the documents relied upon by the DRI were supplied to the applicants. Although the Commissioner has recorded the request of the applicants for cross-objection yet he has neither confirmed nor rejected nor given any finding for the refusal of the cross-examination of the witnesses/persons - The Commissioner has failed to carry out his quasi-judicial duties by not considering the request of cross-examination made by the applicants for which they had given reasons and justifications. Matter remanded back to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication after allowing the applicants to inspect the documents and supplying them the copies of all the documents relied upon by the DRI and considering the applicants request for cross-examination of the signatories - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Breach of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.
2. Failure to provide inspection of documents and copies relied upon by DRI.
3. Non-consideration of request for cross-examination.
4. Delay in passing the impugned order.
5. Failure to independently apply mind and pass reasoned order.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a breach of principles of natural justice as the impugned order was passed without providing inspection of documents or supplying copies relied upon by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The Commissioner failed to confirm or reject the request for cross-examination, which was a clear violation of natural justice principles.

2. The applicants raised objections regarding the lack of inspection of important documents and the denial of copies relied upon by the DRI. The failure to provide access to crucial information affected the applicants' ability to defend themselves adequately, highlighting a significant procedural irregularity.

3. The Commissioner's failure to consider the applicants' request for cross-examination of experts, panchas, and individuals whose statements were relied upon was a critical issue. The lack of opportunity for cross-examination undermined the fairness of the proceedings and compromised the applicants' right to challenge the evidence against them.

4. The delay in passing the impugned order, issued after 5½ months of the completion of proceedings without any reasons provided, was deemed unjustifiable. Citing a relevant judgment, the delay was considered a ground for setting aside the order, emphasizing the importance of timely adjudication in legal proceedings.

5. The Commissioner's failure to independently apply his mind, discuss submissions made by the applicants, and pass a reasoned order was a significant flaw. The order merely reproduced allegations without proper analysis, indicating a lack of thorough consideration and evaluation of the evidence presented.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal found merit in setting aside the impugned order due to the mentioned issues. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for providing access to documents, considering cross-examination requests, and ensuring a timely and reasoned decision. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to decide the case expeditiously within six months of the order receipt to address the prolonged nature of the proceedings.