2022 (12) TMI 327 - HC - Customs

Principles of natural justice - cross-examination of 18 persons - non-reliance on any of the statements to reach to a conclusion - HELD THAT - Interestingly in paragraph 62 of the order while considering the request made by the respondents for cross-examination of 18 persons, the adjudicating authority states that he has not relied upon any of their statements to arrive at a conclusion. However, this finding recorded by the adjudicating authority is contrary to what he has held in the aforementioned paragraphs, which we have pointed out in those paragraphs. The statements have been referred to and conclusion has been arrived at by the authority against the respondents. Thus, going by what has been stated by the adjudicating authority in paragraph 62, we are of the view that if the authority does not propose to rely upon any of the statement of those 18 persons, then obviously a fresh order need be passed on the available material excluding the statements of those 18 persons in the light of the specific stand taken by the adjudicating authority that he is not relying upon any of those statements. The appeal stands allowed in part and the order passed in the writ petition is modified by setting aside the order in original dated 14th June, 2019 and remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law without placing any reliance on the statements recorded from those 18 persons.

Summary

Issues: Setting aside an order due to lack of cross-examination opportunity, reliance on recorded statements, remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority.

The High Court judgment involved an intra-Court appeal against an order from a writ petition. The learned writ Court had set aside the original order and directed the appellant to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of individuals whose statements were considered in passing the order. The appellant contended that the adjudicating authority did not rely on any recorded statements by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence during the investigation. However, the respondent's counsel highlighted specific paragraphs from the original order that contradicted this claim. The adjudicating authority had referred to and relied on statements in reaching a conclusion against the respondents, despite stating otherwise in a later paragraph. Consequently, the Court held that if the authority did not intend to rely on the statements of certain individuals, a fresh order excluding those statements should be passed based on the available material. As a result, the appeal was partially allowed, the original order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority to issue a fresh order without relying on the statements of the mentioned individuals. The authority was directed to comply with this within eight weeks after providing a personal hearing to the respondents' representative. The connected application was also disposed of, with no costs awarded. Finally, the Court ordered the expeditious furnishing of a certified copy of the order upon completion of all legal formalities. The judgment was delivered by T.S. Sivagnanam, J., and was agreed upon by Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.