9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (1) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of Additional Collector of Customs, Madurai, dated 13-2-1989 imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Act for short. 2. Proceedings were instituted against the appellant and others in connection with seizure of pants cloth of foreign origin measuring 3556.8 Metres on 16-2-1984 at Thomas Mandapan, in Thirunelveli District resulting in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lying on the statements of third parties recorded behind the back of the appellant. The learned Counsel therefore, submitted that the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that even in the criminal prosecution against the appellant in respect of this matter launched by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madurai before the Additional Chief Judic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ho were called upon for cross-examination did not turn up. The Advocates insisted on their cross-examination but it appeared that they are keeping away from their proceedings and as such the process could not be completed. Moreover, the case could not be kept in abeyance indefinitely merely on the non-availability of persons required for cross-examination. The Adjudicating authority again in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be afforded effective opportunity to challenge the correctness of the same as per law by cross-examination if he so desires. If witnesses do not turn up for cross-examination, it is open to the adjudicating authority to proceed with the adjudication without relying on those statements against the appellant given. Non-availability of witness will not be a ground to penalise the appellant in la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
