2024 (1) TMI 102 - HC - Customs

Violation of principles of natural justice - request for cross-examination denied - the same was refused by the respondent for a reason that they are not going to rely upon the statements of the said officers and they are going to initiate the proceedings afresh - the said statements were against the petitioners or not - HELD THAT - In the present case, it appears that the petitioner had requested to cross-examine the officers. However, the said request made by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent, since they are not going to rely upon the statement of the said officers and they are intend to initiate the proceedings afresh. In such view of the matter, the question of cross-examination would not arise. Further, the cross-examination of the said officers is necessary only when their statements are against the petitioner. In the present case, the statements of the said officers are said to have in favour of the petitioner and hence, there is no necessity of cross-examination those officers. That apart, it is up to the respondent to rely on the statements of the said officers or not. In such case, since the respondent is not at all going to rely upon the statements of the said officers, there is no need for cross-examination of those officers. A perusal of the judgement in AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHAN VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA OTHERS 2013 (8) TMI 563 - SUPREME COURT makes it clear that if the statements of the said officers are relied upon by the respondent, the cross-examination has to be permitted necessarily. However, in the present case, the respondent is not bound to rely upon the statements of the said officers. That apart, the statements of the said officers are in favour of the petitioner. Hence, there is no necessity to consider the request made by the petitioner for cross-examination. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned communication dated 30.09.2023 issued by the respondent. This writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The writ petition challenges a communication refusing the petitioner's request for cross-examination of officers involved in clearing goods.

Analysis of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Cross-examination request rejection
The petitioner sought to cross-examine officers involved in clearing goods, but the respondent refused, stating they would not rely on the officers' statements and intended to start proceedings anew. The petitioner argued that since the officers' statements favored them, there was no need for cross-examination. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the petitioner contended they were entitled to cross-examination.

Court's Decision:
The court noted that the respondent's decision not to rely on the officers' statements meant there was no need for cross-examination. As the officers' statements were favorable to the petitioner, cross-examination was deemed unnecessary. Referring to the Supreme Court precedent, the court emphasized that cross-examination is essential only when the statements are against the party. Since the respondent was not relying on the officers' statements, the rejection of the cross-examination request was upheld. The court found no illegality in the respondent's communication and dismissed the writ petition without costs.