2019 (6) TMI 1159 - HC - Customs

Principles of natural justice - the petitioner s grievance is that the Commissioner of Customs, who adjudicated the various show cause notices, refused and omitted to provide an opportunity of cross-examining four individuals, two of whom were named in the show cause notices - HELD THAT - This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner, who has an alternative remedy, may invoke it, if so advised. At the same time, in the event the appeal is filed before the CESTAT, it would consider the same on merits and remand the matter for appropriate provision of opportunity of cross-examining the concerned witnesses. This remand is only for the purposes of providing opportunity of cross-examination to the petitioner (in other words, the appropriate remit order to record the cross-examination of witnesses only shall be made). This Court is also informed that the requirements in the statute of pre-deposit in all the cases involving the petition would work out a substantial amount of about ₹ 1.4 crores. The CESTAT shall entertain and adjudicate on the merits of the appeal - including the remand provided the petitioner deposits 1% of the penalty amount in each case levied by the order-in-original within a time stipulated by the CESTAT. After receiving a report with respect to the proceedings of the Commissioner vis- -vis the cross-examination of the witnesses and in the light of it, the CESTAT shall proceed to hear the appeal on its merits and decide it in accordance with law. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner's grievance regarding lack of opportunity for cross-examination of individuals named in show cause notices; Entertaining the petition despite alternative remedy before CESTAT; Requirement of pre-deposit for appeal before CESTAT.

Analysis:
The petitioner raised concerns about the Commissioner of Customs not providing an opportunity for cross-examining individuals whose statements were relied upon in the impugned order. The petitioner disputed the statements in their replies to show cause notices, emphasizing the necessity of cross-examination for reliance on such statements. The respondent argued against entertaining the petition, citing the availability of an appellate remedy before the CESTAT.

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's alternative remedy but expressed the opinion that the petitioner could invoke it if desired. However, it was decided that if an appeal is filed before the CESTAT, the matter would be remanded for the provision of an opportunity for cross-examination of the concerned witnesses. The remand was specifically for the purpose of allowing the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, with a condition of pre-deposit for appeal. The CESTAT was directed to adjudicate on the merits of the appeal, including the remand, upon the petitioner's compliance with the pre-deposit requirement.

The Court kept all rights and contentions of the parties open and disposed of the writ petition accordingly. The order was to be made available under the signatures of the Court Master, concluding the judgment.