9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 71 - HC - CustomsConfiscation - penalty - Gold Bars - noticee not permitted to cross examine the co-noticees, even though their statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act were relied upon - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It was held in the case of S. RAJENDRAN VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ADDL. DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR 2019 (1) TMI 1868 - MADRAS HIGH COURT that such a right is not available. Since the impugned order is appealable, the petitioner are permitted to file an appeal before the appellate authority - petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to impugned order dated 27.11.2018 regarding confiscation of gold bars and penalty imposition. Violation of principles of natural justice by not allowing cross-examination of co-noticees. Analysis: The petitioner contested the impugned order dated 27.11.2018, which involved the confiscation of gold bars and a penalty of ?25,00,000 imposed by the first respondent. The primary argument put forth was the violation of natural justice principles due to the denial of the right to cross-examine the co-noticees, whose statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act were used. The judge referred to a previous case, W.P.(MD)No.863 of 2018, where it was established that such a right is not available, a decision upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.(MD)No.1469 of 2018. Consequently, the judge deemed the writ petition liable for rejection. The judge acknowledged that the petitioner did not delve into the merits of the case. As the impugned order was appealable, the judge granted permission for the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority. If the statutory appeal is submitted within six weeks from receiving a copy of the order, the appellate authority will consider it without regard to the limitation period. The petitioner was assured that all other arguments, except the issue of cross-examination denial, would be available for consideration. No costs were imposed on the petitioner, and a connected miscellaneous petition was closed as a result of the judgment.
|
