2017 (2) TMI 1524 - HC - Customs

Principles of natural justice - rejection of prayer of the petitioner to cross-examine the Central Revenue Control Laboratory official on the aspect of nomenclature with regard to the raw material used in the manufacture of carbon black feedstock - HELD THAT - Whenever there is violation of principles of natural justice, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not closed. In that view of the matter, even though the first order passed by the adjudicating authority has not been challenged, when the respondent authority has reiterated the same in the concluding part of the impugned order, it speaks to the fact that there is non-compliance of principles of natural justice and the petitioner has not been afforded opportunity to cross-examine to make his stand clear and to stand by his defence. Unless the same is brought on record by eliciting in cross examination, further argument, if any, raised, would be a futile exercise. The writ appeals are partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of prayer for cross-examination by the respondent authority.
2. Challenge to the rejection of the prayer for cross-examination.
3. Availability of alternative remedy to the appellant.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice.
5. Affording opportunity for cross-examination to the petitioner.
6. Modification of the order for cross-examination.
7. Final decision and orders of the court.

Analysis:

The High Court of Madras delivered a judgment in response to the rejection of the petitioner's prayer for cross-examination by the respondent authority. The initial order by the respondent authority, dated 29.1.2016, denied the petitioner's request for cross-examination of the Central Revenue Control Laboratory official regarding the nomenclature of raw materials used in manufacturing carbon black feedstock. The Additional Commissioner upheld this decision without challenge. However, during the final hearing, the claim of the petitioner was again rejected based on the earlier order, prompting the court to intervene.

The learned Single Judge noted that since the earlier order was not contested, the respondent authority was justified in denying the cross-examination request. Nevertheless, the court acknowledged that the failure to allow cross-examination amounted to a violation of natural justice. The court emphasized that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the remedy remains available in cases of natural justice violations. Therefore, the court modified the previous orders and granted the petitioner the opportunity to cross-examine the Central Revenue Control Laboratory official within two months.

The court highlighted that the petitioner must be given a fair chance to clarify their position and defend themselves properly, as without cross-examination, any further arguments would be futile. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and ensuring a fair hearing for all parties involved. The writ appeals were partially allowed, with no costs imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, concluding the legal proceedings.

In summary, the judgment addressed the issues of natural justice, the right to cross-examination, and the availability of legal remedies, ultimately ensuring a fair and just resolution to the dispute at hand.