9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 206 - HC - CustomsViolation of principles of natural justice - Seeking to forbear the second respondent from conducting adjudication pursuant to the SCN without acceding to the request made by the petitioners for cross examination of the persons and officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence - HELD THAT - No prejudice would be caused to the respondents in the light of the fact that as on date the petitioner is having the benefit of interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the issuance of the Show Cause Notices to the respective petitioners to consider the petitioners representation through their interim replies seeking for right of cross examination of the persons mentioned therein on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame to be fixed by this Court after affording one personal hearing to the petitioners. If the respondents come to the conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled to cross examine the witnesses and if they decide to reject the petitioners request by passing a speaking order in respect of the request made by the petitioners that the petitioners are not entitled to cross examine the persons they have a right to pass a final adjudication order pursuant to the issuance of the Show Cause Notices on merits and in accordance with law. The order passed on the petitioners request seeking for cross examination has to be communicated to the petitioners within a period of one week from the date of passing of such an order. Petition disposed off.
Issues Presented and Considered:1. Whether the petitioners have the right to cross-examine persons and officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence named in the Show Cause Notices.2. Whether the right to cross-examination is mandatory under the Customs Act.3. Whether the failure to consider the request for cross-examination violates principles of natural justice.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:The petitioners sought to restrain the second respondent from conducting adjudication without allowing cross-examination of the persons named in the Show Cause Notices. The petitioners argued that without the right to cross-examine, they would be prejudiced in disproving the respondents' contentions. The petitioners contended that the right to cross-examination is mandatory.The petitioners relied on authorities emphasizing the mandatory nature of the right to cross-examine witnesses. In contrast, the respondents argued that under the Customs Act, cross-examination is not mandatory. They cited legal precedents to support their position.The Court noted that the petitioners' request for cross-examination had not been considered by the respondents. However, as the petitioners had the benefit of an interim stay, no further proceedings had taken place. The Court emphasized the need for a speaking order if the respondents were to reject the request for cross-examination. The Court directed that the respondents should communicate their decision within a week of passing such an order.Significant Holdings:The Court held that the right to cross-examination is not inherently mandatory under the Customs Act. However, in this case, the Court emphasized the importance of considering the petitioners' request for cross-examination and directed the respondents to pass a speaking order on the matter. The Court's decision aimed to ensure that the petitioners' rights were respected and that principles of natural justice were upheld.Final determinations on each issue:1. The Court did not categorically establish the mandatory nature of the right to cross-examination under the Customs Act but emphasized the need for fair consideration of the petitioners' request.2. The Court directed the respondents to pass a speaking order on the petitioners' request for cross-examination and communicate the decision within a week.Overall, the judgment focused on balancing the interests of the petitioners in seeking cross-examination with the legal framework under the Customs Act. The Court's decision aimed to ensure procedural fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice in the adjudication process.
|
