2016 (5) TMI 1041 - HC - Customs

Seeking cross-examination of two persons whose statements were relied upon while issuing the SCN - Cross-examination denied by the order that there is no such direction in the above referred order of Hon ble High Court of Delhi and also the same was also never sought by you at the time of adjudication proceedings held earlier in the said matter. - Held that - the reason given is plainly untenable apart from the fact that the AC who passed the above order is not the AA himself. It is pointed out by the Respondents that the order passed by the AC was approved by the Commissioner and, therefore, it could not be said that it was without jurisdiction. The Court is unable to accept the above submission. Once the adjudicating proceedings are conducted by the Commissioner, it is he alone who was to pass orders in relation to any aspect of the adjudication and that cannot be delegated to any subordinate authority. Therefore, the Court finds no justification for denying the request for cross-examination of the two persons whose statements have been relied upon by the Customs Department. The impugned order is quashed with a direction to AA to permit the Petitioner to cross-examine the two persons within a time schedule to be fixed by the AA. - Petition disposed of

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order rejecting cross-examination request.

In this case, the challenge was to an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs rejecting the petitioner's request for cross-examination of individuals whose statements were relied upon in a show cause notice. The High Court had previously set aside a similar order in a different case, directing the Adjudicating Authority to provide relied upon documents, receive a reply, hold a personal hearing, and pass an order within a specified timeframe. The Assistant Commissioner, who was not the Adjudicating Authority, rejected the cross-examination request citing lack of direction from the High Court's previous order. The High Court found this reason untenable, emphasizing that only the Adjudicating Authority, in this case the Commissioner of Customs, could make decisions regarding adjudication proceedings, not a subordinate authority like the Assistant Commissioner. The Court concluded that there was no justification for denying the cross-examination request and quashed the order, directing the Adjudicating Authority to allow the petitioner to cross-examine the individuals within a specified timeframe, extending the time limit for completion of adjudication proceedings accordingly.

Overall, the judgment focused on the procedural fairness and the authority of the Adjudicating Authority in customs proceedings. It highlighted the importance of allowing cross-examination of relied upon individuals and emphasized that such decisions should be made by the Adjudicating Authority, not a subordinate official. The Court's decision aimed to ensure a fair adjudication process by granting the petitioner the opportunity to cross-examine the individuals in question and extending the time limit for completion of proceedings.