9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to validity of order confiscating gold under Sea Customs Act, Land Customs Act, and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. Denial of opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses. Violation of principles of natural justice. Analysis: 1. The judgment deals with a petition challenging the validity of an order confiscating gold under various Acts. The order imposed a personal penalty and confiscated the gold based on statements of witnesses, without allowing cross-examination of certain witnesses. The petition challenged the denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses, alleging a violation of principles of natural justice. 2. The primary ground of challenge was the denial of the opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the 1st Respondent in passing the order. The Respondent contended that customs inquiries did not require cross-examination and that the Enquiry Officer had discretion in allowing it. However, a Division Bench decision held that failure to provide the right to cross-examination in customs inquiries violated natural justice principles. 3. The judgment noted that the Respondent's reliance on witness statements without allowing cross-examination was a violation of natural justice. Following the Division Bench decision, the court concluded that the impugned order must be set aside due to the denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses, as it violated principles of natural justice. 4. The court did not delve into other grounds raised in the petition, as the denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses was sufficient to set aside the impugned order. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners, setting aside the order and making the rule absolute in their favor. 5. The judgment directed the 1st respondent to conduct fresh inquiries within a specified time frame. If fresh proceedings were not initiated within the stipulated period, a writ of mandamus would be issued to restore possession of the confiscated gold to the petitioners. The respondents were also ordered to bear the costs of the petitioners. In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of the right to cross-examine witnesses in quasi-judicial inquiries, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and setting aside the impugned order due to the denial of this right.
|
