2021 (12) TMI 1362 - HC - Customs

Violation of principles of natural justice - cross-examination of witnesses denied upon whose statement respondent authority has relied before passing the impugned adjudication order which is adverse to the interest of the petitioner - HELD THAT - Considering the submissions of the parties and in view of the fact that factual and legal questions are involved in this writ petition and this is not such type of a case which can be thrown out at motion stage, this writ petition is entertained and respondents are directed to file affidavit-in-opposition within 17th January, 2022, petitioner to file reply thereto, if any, within 24th January, 2022. List this matter on 25th January, 2022 for final hearing. Respondents shall not take coercive action on the basis of impugned adjudication order till 1st February, 2022 or until further orders whichever is earlier.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order for violation of principles of natural justice by not allowing cross-examination of witnesses.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, alleging a violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner contended that they were not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the authority before passing the adverse adjudication order. The petitioner argued that the right to cross-examine witnesses is a fundamental aspect of natural justice, and its denial in this case prejudiced their interests. The respondent, represented by the customs authority, opposed this argument, claiming that the petitioner had no entitlement to cross-examine the witnesses in question. Both parties cited various legal precedents to support their respective positions.

The Court, after hearing the arguments from both sides, acknowledged the complexity of factual and legal issues involved in the case. Consequently, the Court decided to entertain the writ petition rather than dismissing it summarily. The respondents were directed to file an affidavit-in-opposition by a specified date, and the petitioner was given an opportunity to file a reply thereafter. The matter was scheduled for final hearing on a later date. Additionally, the Court ordered that no coercive action should be taken based on the impugned adjudication order until a certain date or until further orders were issued, whichever came earlier. Both parties were instructed to prepare short written notes of arguments and compilation for the upcoming hearing.