2018 (9) TMI 199 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - breach of principles of natural justice - It is the contention of the petitioner that, the operative portion of the impugned order is a replica of the show cause notice - Held that - In a given case, the adjudication authority may agree with the show cause notice. It can arrive at a finding which was held prima facie while issuing the show cause notice. That, per se, does not vitiate the impugned order on the touchstone of either breach of principles of natural justice or the impugned order being perverse - The Court is informed that the petitioner had already made a pre-deposit for the purpose of preferring an appeal. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to adjudication order based on breach of principles of natural justice.

The judgment of the Calcutta High Court dealt with a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated February 20, 2018, primarily on the grounds of a breach of principles of natural justice. The petitioner contended that despite requesting cross-examination, they were denied the right to cross-examine identified persons and were not provided copies of all documents relied upon by the prosecution. The petitioner argued that the impugned order merely replicated the show cause notice and did not address their contentions, thus seeking to set aside the order. On the other hand, the department argued that the petitioner did not request cross-examination of prosecution witnesses but only of document authors, who were not introduced as witnesses in the proceedings. The department maintained that the request for cross-examination was not valid as the authors were not called upon to depose. The court noted the specific intelligence received by the department regarding unscrupulous exporters and the issuance of a show cause notice detailing documents and statements to be relied upon in the proceedings. The petitioner sought cross-examination of document authors, not natural persons, and the court clarified that the concept of cross-examination could not be equated with examination-in-chief, as claimed by the petitioner during the writ petition hearing. The court also addressed the issue of non-furnishing of documents, stating it as a matter of fact to be considered by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner's contention that the impugned order replicated the show cause notice was rejected, with the court emphasizing that an adjudication authority may agree with the show cause notice findings without vitiating the order. The court declined to interfere in the case, noting the petitioner's pre-deposit for an appeal. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.