9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idered with an element of flexibility. The question as to whether in a given case, the decision declining permission to adduce evidence or cross examine persons is correct can be considered only after the conclusion of proceedings, having regard to the prejudice, if any, caused to the party on account of the same. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Entry for clearance of the same. The goods imported by the said company were, however, not permitted to be cleared by the authorities under the Act alleging violation of various statutory provisions. At that point of time, at the instance of the importer, one of the technical experts of the petitioner and his team inspected the imported goods and issued an inspection and valuation certificate. It is stated by the petitioner that the said inspection was conducted under the supervision of the officers of the department following the standard procedures prescribed for valuation and inspection of such goods. It is also stated that the functionality of all the machines, its age and residual life were ascertained by the technical expert of the petitioner in the course of inspection and the said particulars have also been furnished in the inspection report. It is stated by the petitioner that later, proceedings have been initiated by the respondent against the importer for confiscating the imported articles for the alleged violation of the statutory provisions. Ext.P1 is the show cause notice issued by the respondent in this connection. In terms of the said notice, proceedings are in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he right asserted by the petitioners to cross examine the persons involved in the first case and examine the Custom Officers involved in the second case cannot be adjudicated at this stage in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the question whether there was violation of the principles of natural justice could be ascertained only after the culmination of proceedings, depending on the findings rendered therein. It was pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that the questions of this nature are therefore, essentially matters for the appellate authority under the Act to consider if the decision of the competent authority goes against the parties. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel on either sides. While in W.P.(C) No.480 of 2018, the petitioner seeks permission to cross-examine two persons to discredit their statements obtained under Section 108 of the Act which are relied on against them, in W.P.(C) No.7554 of 2018, the petitioner seeks permission to examine the Customs Officers present at the time of inspection of the imported machines by the technical expert o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ult in miscarriage of justice, unless prejudice is caused or demonstrated (useless formality theory). The question as to what extent the principles of natural justice needs to be stretched in a given case has to be considered with an element of flexibility. It is apposite in this context to refer to a passage from paragraph 19 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Canara Bank v. Debasis Das [(2003) 4 SCC 557], which reads thus : "Concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its context should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the statute under which the enquiry is held. " In Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II [(2016) 15 SCC 785], it is seen that the Apex Court took the view that not allowing the assessee to cross-examine a person whose statement is made the basis of an order is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
