1993 (5) TMI 78 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Violation of principles of natural justice in adjudication proceedings regarding cross-examination of witnesses.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bombay revolves around the violation of the principles of natural justice in adjudication proceedings concerning the cross-examination of witnesses. The appeals were directed against an Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay. Initially, the matter was brought before the Tribunal due to the lack of personal hearing and consideration of the request for cross-examination. The Tribunal had set aside the Collector's order and remanded the case for de novo adjudication, emphasizing the importance of providing a fair opportunity for cross-examination. Subsequently, the Collector initiated fresh proceedings where the appellants requested to cross-examine a witness, Mr. Parekh, whose testimony was crucial. However, the Collector dismissed this request without providing adequate reasons, stating that no useful purpose would be served by permitting cross-examination.

The legal representatives of both parties presented their arguments before the Tribunal. The respondent contended that the supporting manufacturer under the DEEC Scheme had not complied with Chapter IV-A provisions, and there were other pieces of evidence besides the testimony of the witnesses in question. The Tribunal examined the relevant portion of the Collector's order, which failed to provide reasons for denying the cross-examination request. While acknowledging that cross-examination cannot be demanded as a right, the Tribunal emphasized that when statements are relied upon, a fair opportunity for examining witnesses should be granted. The lack of reasoning behind the denial of cross-examination vitiated the order, indicating a rush to adjudicate without proper consideration of evidence.

As a result of the above analysis, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the Collector for reconsideration of the appellants' request for cross-examination. The Collector was instructed to allow cross-examination of witnesses named by the appellants, provide reasons if any witness need not be cross-examined, and then pass orders based on final submissions in accordance with the law. Consequently, all appeals were allowed by way of remand, and the stay applications were also considered disposed of in light of the judgment.