2024 (9) TMI 1431 - HC - Customs

Violation of principles of natural justice - respondent did not provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner nor acceded to his request for personal hearing and proceeded to pass the impugned order - issuance of SCN invoking Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - A perusal of the material on record will indicate that despite the petitioner making a request for crossexamination of the Deputy Director and for production of documents, the respondent No.2 has proceeded to pass the impugned order, without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner in this regard. So also, the first appellate authority/respondent No.1 has mechanically/summarily confirmed the order in original despite the petitioner taking up a specific contention that he was deprived of an opportunity of cross-examining the Deputy Director and also producing certain documents. In order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to establish his defence by producing the necessary documents as well as cross-examining the Deputy Director, without expressing any opinion on the merits/de-merits of the rival contentions of the parties, it is deemed just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 09.03.2023, passed by the appellate authority. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.
2. Denial of opportunity for cross-examination and production of documents.
3. Appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act dismissed.
4. Petitioner seeking relief through writ petition.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a writ to quash an order-in-appeal issued by the second respondent under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner alleged a violation of principles of natural justice as he was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to present his defense, including cross-examining the Deputy Director and obtaining crucial documents. Despite the petitioner's requests, the respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order, leading to the petitioner filing an appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, which was also dismissed by the appellate authority.

The High Court observed that the petitioner's right to a fair hearing was compromised, as he was not allowed to cross-examine the Deputy Director or access necessary documents. The Court noted that the appellate authority summarily confirmed the original order without addressing the petitioner's contentions. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the matter to be reconsidered, emphasizing the importance of providing the petitioner with an opportunity to present his defense adequately.

Although the petitioner did not challenge the original order passed by the second respondent, the Court, in the interest of justice, decided to set aside that order as well. The Court instructed the second respondent to allow the petitioner to secure and produce relevant documents, cross-examine the Deputy Director, and proceed with the case in adherence to legal procedures. The judgment granted the petitioner the opportunity to contest the proceedings anew and reserved the right to present additional pleadings and documents.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside both the impugned order-in-appeal and the original order. The matter was remitted back to the second respondent for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of upholding principles of natural justice and providing the petitioner with a fair opportunity to present his case. The judgment underscored the significance of allowing cross-examination and access to essential documents in legal proceedings.