2008 (8) TMI 306 - AT - Customs

Cross Examination of DRI officer - It is recorded in the adjudication order that the advocate requested for cross-examination of DRI officer and other persons. It is the grievance of the advocate before us that the adjudication authority has not recorded any findings on such request and nor did he decline the cross-examination on that date. Subsequently, when they received the order, they became aware of the cross-examination was being denied. Adjudicating authority could have declined the cross-examination by giving reasons for declining and proceeded ahead with the hearing, upon which the ld. Advocate could have argued the matter on merits. This particular point is not forthcoming in the order in original. In other words, there is a violation of principles of natural justice. It is a settled law that any order passed in violation of principles of natural justice is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the matter afresh.

Summary

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice in adjudication process.

In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, the two stay applications were filed against the waiver of pre-deposit of custom duty, confiscation of goods, and penalties imposed on the applicants. The Tribunal noted that the appeal could be disposed of based on a limited point of violation of principles of natural justice. The counsel for the appellant highlighted that the adjudicating authority did not consider the reply filed by them and proceeded with confirming the demand and imposing penalties and confiscation. It was pointed out that the advocate had requested cross-examination of DRI officer and other persons during the last hearing, but the adjudicating authority did not record any findings on the request. The Tribunal found that the failure to address the request for cross-examination amounted to a violation of principles of natural justice. As per established legal principles, any order passed in violation of natural justice is not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration. The advocate undertook to appear before the Commissioner for a fresh hearing. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, leaving all issues open for further consideration.