2010 (9) TMI 306 - AT - Customs

Natural justice cross examination - appellant seeks cross-examination of co-noticees Held that - appellant not produce the co-noticees before adjudicating authority, when the persons known to appellant were explaining their role and appellant s role in getting the licences by submitting forged documents it cannot be said the denial of cross-examination of co-noticees is violation of natural justice

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Denial of opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses. Violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:

1. Penalty Imposed Under Section 112:
The appellant appealed against the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, for involvement in a conspiracy to submit forged documents to obtain DEPB licences. The adjudicating authority relied on statements of co-noticees under Section 108 of the Customs Act, describing the appellant's role. The appellant contended that the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses violated the principles of natural justice. The appellant cited relevant case law to support this contention.

2. Revenue's Contention and Legal Basis:
The revenue argued that the appellant did not cooperate during the investigation, failed to respond to summons and show cause notices promptly, and only requested cross-examination during a personal hearing in 2007. The revenue emphasized that statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act are admissible as evidence, citing Supreme Court precedents. The statements of co-noticees detailed the appellant's involvement in the conspiracy to obtain DEPB licences using forged documents.

3. Court's Findings and Dismissal of Appeal:
The Court found the statements of co-noticees to be detailed and unretracted, affirming the appellant's involvement in the conspiracy. The Court noted that the appellant made no effort to produce the co-noticees for cross-examination or provide reasons for seeking it. Consequently, the Court concluded that the denial of cross-examination did not violate natural justice, given the appellant's lack of cooperation and failure to engage during the investigation and proceedings. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments based on the specific circumstances of the case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, relevant legal principles, and the Court's reasoning leading to the dismissal of the appeal.