2020 (1) TMI 1204 - HC - Customs

Principles of Natural Justice - non-grant of opportunity for cross-examination - HELD THAT - In the instant case, this Court do not propose to examine any other aspect or merits, else it would not be proper thereafter to remand the matter and as the counsel for the respondents also could not controvert or dispute the settled proposition of law and as it is also not disputed that the statements, which have been taken into consideration for casting the order, the persons making those statements have not been permitted to be cross-examined on the perception that the same was only a delaying tactic. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-granting of opportunity for cross-examination vitiating the order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-granting of opportunity for cross-examination vitiating the order:
The primary issue in this case revolved around the denial of the opportunity for cross-examination, which was argued to have vitiated the order. The petitioner contended that the order should be disposed of by remanding the matter for cross-examination, citing numerous judgments supporting this argument. The respondent, through their counsel, did not dispute the significance of cross-examination in vitiating the order, acknowledging that this issue has been addressed in various judgments. Consequently, the Court acknowledged the importance of cross-examination in cases where statements are relied upon, emphasizing that the individuals making those statements should have been permitted to be cross-examined. The Court referred to a previous order highlighting the necessity of affording an opportunity for cross-examination, which led to the remanding of the matter. The judgment emphasized the settled proposition of law that the affected party has the right to cross-examine witnesses, even if they have access to the material on record. Therefore, the Court concluded that the denial of cross-examination in this case had indeed vitiated the order, necessitating the quashing and setting aside of the order. The respondent was directed to afford the opportunity for cross-examination to the relevant individuals and authorities involved in the investigation, ensuring a fair and just process. The Court refrained from delving into other aspects or merits of the case, focusing solely on the issue of cross-examination. The judgment highlighted the importance of applying the law diligently and promptly, without incurring unnecessary delays. Ultimately, the petition was disposed of, with the rule being made absolute in favor of granting the opportunity for cross-examination, without any costs being imposed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Gujarat High Court underscores the significance of the right to cross-examination in ensuring procedural fairness and upholding principles of natural justice in legal proceedings.