2015 (8) TMI 781 - HC - Customs

Denial of Cross examination - Mis-declaration of import of goods - Principle of Natural Justice Petitioner made representation requesting Assistant Director of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to provisionally release goods after drawal of samples and weighment of goods, however there was no reply from respondent Request of petitioner to cross-examine eight persons was also not granted Held that - rules of natural justice require that party must be given opportunity to adduce all relevant evidence upon which he relies by giving opportunity of cross-examining witnesses examined by that party In present case, neither any speaking order was passed nor respondent was justified in not permitting petitioner to cross-examine above said eight witnesses Thus, petitioner was not given fair opportunity to defend their case Accordingly, impugned order set aside Petition allowed Decided in favour of Petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging order on violation of natural justice principles; Cross-examination denial leading to breach of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the respondent, alleging violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner imported goods and faced detention by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. Despite seeking provisional release through writ petitions, the respondent did not respond promptly. Subsequently, the petitioner was called upon to show cause regarding mis-declared descriptions in Bills of Entry. The petitioner's request to cross-examine eight persons was denied by the respondent, leading to the present challenge. The petitioner argued that denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice, citing relevant legal precedents emphasizing the right to cross-examine witnesses. The respondent contended that cross-examination was unnecessary, as evidence of mis-declaration was established. However, the court found the denial of cross-examination unjust, emphasizing the importance of this right in ensuring fair adjudication.

The court referred to the Gujarat High Court's decision emphasizing meaningful participation in adjudication proceedings post cross-examination. The court highlighted that the petitioner's right to cross-examine witnesses should have been addressed before the final order was passed. Citing the Supreme Court's stance on natural justice, the court emphasized the necessity of providing the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses as a fundamental aspect of fair proceedings. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent to allow the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, ensuring a fair opportunity to defend their case. The respondent was instructed to pass appropriate orders within 45 days from the date of the court's order.

In conclusion, the writ petitions were allowed based on the violation of natural justice principles. The court's decision highlighted the importance of cross-examination in ensuring fair adjudication and directed the respondent to permit the petitioner to cross-examine witnesses and make decisions in accordance with the law within a specified timeframe.