9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 749 - AT - CustomsSeeking stay of the impugned order - Violation of principles of natural justice - denial of cross-examination of witnesses in quasi-judicial proceedings - mis-declaration of quantity and value of goods - HELD THAT - The appellant instead of replying to the notice, vide letter dated 25.04.2015 requested for one months time to reply to the notice, which was granted up to 31.05.2015 and personal hearing was scheduled on 03.06.2015. The appellant once again vide his letter dated 25.05.2015 submitted that due to his illness, he was not in a position to reply to the notice and requested for 3 months time and time was granted again till 25.06.2015. Once again, the appellant vide letter dated 18.06.2015 submitted that he was bedridden and was advised complete rest and sought adjournment for filing the reply and to attend the personal hearing. The personal hearing was rescheduled to 16.07.2015 and the appellant was informed that reply to the notice could also be submitted on or before that date. The appellant once again vide letter dated 15.07.2015 submitted that that he was not in a position to reply to the notice and requested further time sought for another 3 months time. It is seen that the show-cause notice was issued on 31st March 2015, the appellant went on delaying to reply to the show-cause notice with one or the other pretext and nearly after 5 months, reply was filed on 24.08.2015. In his reply, the appellant had challenged legality of the show-cause notice and various proceedings during the investigation based on legal infirmities but nowhere has he stated specific reasons for cross-examination of the officers and other individuals - There is no mention of the name of the officers or any individuals. Only on 14.09.2015, the appellant submitted a letter providing the list of witnesses to be cross-examined and the reasons mentioned against these individuals are for having recorded statement, having prepared the inventory and arrested the appellant, having searched the shop premises of the appellant, having filed a reply to the retraction filed by the appellant, against the statement of the co-noticee and the witness who signed the Mahazar and finally stating that there was a complaint against the 9th witness, hence needs to be cross-examined. From the records placed, there are no reasons specified by the appellant for cross-examination of the above witnesses. There is no doubt that the appellant had been delaying in filing reply to the show-cause notice and now delaying in the progress of the adjudication proceedings by seeking cross-examination on flimsy grounds. The Supreme Court in the case of Kanungo and Company vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta and Others 1972 (2) TMI 35 - SUPREME COURT , wherein it was observed that ' there is no force in the third contention of the appellant . In the instant case the show-cause notice has relied upon various e-mails and other documents retrieved from the appellants premises and the officers concerned have only prepared the documents based on the details found in the consignment and from the documents retrieved from their computers and hence the cross examination does not serve any purpose.' In the case of N.S. Mahesh Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin 2015 (11) TMI 1566 - KERALA HIGH COURT , the Hon ble High Court of Kerala with regard to cross-examination of departmental officers and the co-noticee has observed ' On a perusal of Ext.P5 order, and the reasons given by the respondent to deny the request of the petitioner for cross-examination, I do not find any illegality in the said order that would warrant an interference with the said order in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.' There are no reason even in the case of Shri N.S. Mahesh, the need for cross-examination, since his statements do not find mention in the reply to the show-cause notice and the appellant has not contested the statement with specific reasons. Similarly, Shri O. Kasim Kunju was just a witness to the inventory and Mahazar and since none of these have been contested, the rejection of cross-examination is upheld. Hence, there are no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of cross-examination of witnesses in quasi-judicial proceedings. 2. Allegations of procedural impropriety and breach of natural justice. 3. Legality of the Commissioner's order as an interim order and its appealability. 4. Delay in adjudication proceedings due to the appellant's actions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Denial of Cross-Examination of Witnesses: The appellant sought cross-examination of several individuals involved in the investigation, arguing that it was necessary to challenge the alleged mis-declaration of goods and the procedural actions taken against him. The Commissioner allowed cross-examination of only one officer and denied the rest, citing that cross-examination in quasi-judicial proceedings is not a matter of right. The decision was based on the facts and circumstances of each case, and the appellant failed to provide specific reasons for cross-examination in his reply to the show-cause notice. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, noting that the appellant's request for cross-examination seemed to be an afterthought and lacked substantive grounds. 2. Allegations of Procedural Impropriety and Breach of Natural Justice: The appellant contended that the denial of cross-examination amounted to a breach of natural justice. He argued that the statements and documents relied upon by the Commissioner were obtained through undue means and were not credible without cross-examination. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant did not challenge the inventory or the Mahazar prepared during the investigation, nor did he specify how cross-examination would alter the findings. The Tribunal referenced precedents indicating that the right to cross-examine is not absolute and must be justified with factual grounds. 3. Legality of the Commissioner's Order as an Interim Order and Its Appealability: The appellant challenged the Commissioner's order as an interim order, arguing that it was not appealable under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. Initially, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on these grounds, but the High Court of Kerala later clarified that any order by the Commissioner as an adjudicating authority is appealable. Consequently, the Tribunal reconsidered the matter but ultimately upheld the Commissioner's decision, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments for cross-examination. 4. Delay in Adjudication Proceedings Due to the Appellant's Actions: The Tribunal noted that the appellant repeatedly delayed responding to the show-cause notice, citing various personal reasons. This delay contributed to the prolonged adjudication process. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's actions seemed to obstruct the proceedings, and his requests for cross-examination were seen as attempts to further delay the process without substantial justification. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to expedite the disposal of the show-cause notice while ensuring the appellant has an opportunity for a personal hearing. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial grounds for the appellant's requests for cross-examination and noting procedural delays caused by the appellant. The Tribunal instructed the adjudicating authority to proceed with the adjudication, ensuring the appellant's right to a personal hearing is respected. The decision underscores the importance of timely and justified requests in quasi-judicial proceedings and clarifies the scope of cross-examination rights within such contexts.
|
