2010 (12) TMI 489 - HC - Central Excise

Natural Justice - The appeal is taken up on the point violation of principle of natural justice as the first authority while adjudicating the matter did not allow to cross-examine the persons whose evidence and/or statements were said to have been relied on - In spite of this point being taken it has come to our notice that the learned Tribunal has not dealt with on this aspect - Hence the Tribunal should have scrupulously examined whether the deposition of the witnesses was relied on by the first authority while passing order of adjudication - At the outset the appellant asked for cross-examination of those persons or even if it is not asked whether the first authority offered to the appellant for cross-examination of those persons ought to have been looked into. Held that direct the Tribunal to decide afresh firstly after making an enquiry whether statement and/or deposition of any person or persons was relied on by the first authority in decision making process secondly whether the appellant was given a chance to cross-examine either on request or without any request.

Summary

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order; Failure to allow cross-examination of witnesses; Compliance with Regulation 23(4) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order
The High Court admitted the appeal based on the contention that the impugned order dated 3rd June, 2010, and the order dated 19th May, 2009, were passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The Court observed that the first authority did not allow the appellant to cross-examine the persons whose evidence was relied upon. Despite the appellant's request for cross-examination, the Learned Tribunal failed to address this crucial aspect. The Court emphasized that natural justice requires affording the adversary the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are relied upon in the decision-making process. Due to the oversight of the Learned Tribunal in not conducting this inquiry, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and directed the Tribunal to reexamine the matter, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles.

Issue 2: Failure to allow cross-examination of witnesses
The appeal was primarily taken up due to the failure to allow cross-examination of witnesses, which was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court noted that the appellant had requested the opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were relied upon by the first authority. However, the Learned Tribunal did not address this issue, leading to the appeal succeeding on this ground. The High Court directed the Tribunal to conduct a fresh inquiry to determine whether the statements of any persons were relied upon in the decision-making process and whether the appellant was given the chance to cross-examine them. The Court mandated that if these formalities were not complied with, the Tribunal should allow the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses without being influenced by the previous judgment.

Issue 3: Compliance with Regulation 23(4) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984
The impugned order dated 3rd June, 2010, was also challenged on the grounds of being baseless, malicious, and passing in violation of Regulation 23(4) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. The appellants contended that they were not provided with the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose depositions were relied upon by the Commissioner. The Court found merit in this argument and set aside the impugned judgment, emphasizing the importance of following natural justice principles in decision-making processes. The High Court directed the Tribunal to conduct a fresh examination within three months to ensure proper compliance with the regulations and the opportunity for cross-examination.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment highlighted the significance of upholding natural justice principles, particularly the right to cross-examine witnesses, in administrative and adjudicatory proceedings. The Court's decision to set aside the impugned judgment and order underscored the importance of fair procedures and compliance with regulatory requirements in ensuring a just and equitable legal process.