9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Instrumental in Importation 2. Foundation of Evidence 3. Violation of Natural Justice 4. Malafide or Arbitrary Order Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Instrumental in Importation: The petitioner was accused of being instrumental in the importation of excess dunnage wood. The Customs Authorities alleged that the petitioner, under the guise of a guarantee for 15 tons, offloaded a quantity much in excess of 15 tons without a valid import trade control license. Statements from boatmen indicated that more than 15 tons were offloaded from the vessel, and the petitioner's agent, O.P. Singh, was implicated in directing the excess unloading. The petitioner denied these allegations, claiming he only purchased and offloaded the permitted 15 tons. The court found that the Customs adjudicator could draw proper inferences from lawful evidence but did not pronounce a final view on this issue due to procedural defects in the enquiry. 2. Foundation of Evidence: The petitioner argued that he was found guilty and penalized without any foundation of evidence against him. The Customs Authorities relied on statements from boatmen (Manjhi and Dandees) and a purported statement from Satu Manjhi, which the petitioner claimed was coerced and false. The petitioner provided a second statement from Satu Manjhi, alleging coercion by Customs Officers. The Customs adjudicator disbelieved this second statement, deeming it a forgery, and relied on the initial statements. However, the court noted that the refusal to allow the petitioner to examine witnesses and cross-examine the boatmen whose statements were used against him was a violation of natural justice. 3. Violation of Natural Justice: The petitioner claimed that the principles of natural justice were violated as he was not given an opportunity to produce his evidence or cross-examine witnesses. The court observed that the enquiry was unfair because the Customs Authorities did not produce the boatmen for cross-examination and refused to allow the petitioner to examine key witnesses, including Customs Officers and Girish Munni Manjhi. The court cited Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the necessity of allowing a party to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence. The court held that the enquiry was not fairly conducted, and the refusal to give a further personal hearing to the petitioner was unjust. 4. Malafide or Arbitrary Order: The petitioner contended that the order was malafide, made at the instigation of the Rummaging Intelligence Officer, or was arbitrary. The court did not find conclusive evidence of malafide intent but noted that the adjudicator's reasoning revealed a prejudiced mind against the petitioner. The adjudicator's anticipation of what the petitioner would extract from the witnesses and the dismissal of the Master's statements in an offhand manner were criticized. The court concluded that the procedural defects and the refusal to allow a fair hearing indicated a lack of quasi-judicial fair play. Conclusion: The court quashed the impugned order due to procedural defects and violations of natural justice. It granted liberty to the Customs Authorities to proceed afresh from the stage reached after the enquiry held on January 6, 1962, ensuring that the petitioner is given the opportunity to examine witnesses and cross-examine those whose statements are used against him. The petitioner was also allowed to take any points before the Customs Authorities, including those left open in this case.
|
