9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Even in that case, the complaint was about not granting cross-examination opportunities. The Co-ordinate Bench relied upon the decision of this Court in Haresh Nagindas Vora [ 2017 (6) TMI 964 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] to hold that the Petitioner cannot easily bypass the statutory remedy of appeal and insist upon the matter being considered on merits in the Writ Petition. From the perusal of the impugned order, at least prima facie, we find that this is not a case of no notice or no opportunity to defend the allegations in the show cause notice. At the highest, this is a case where the allegation is of insufficient opportunity because of the denial of cross-examination of some of the persons who made statements in the adjudication proceedings. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 11 September 2024 disposing of Writ Petition (L) No. 26365 of 2024. 5. Now, this Petition has been filed, and it is argued that the impugned order violates principles of natural justice because the Petitioner was denied the opportunity to cross-examine some of the persons whose statements had been recorded in the adjudication proceedings. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is not involved in smuggling 618 Kgs of gold. In any event, denial of the opportunity to cross-examine the persons given statements in the adjudication proceedings amounts to a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He submitted that in natural justice failure cases, the Petitioner should not be relegated to the alterna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly bypass the statutory remedy of appeal and insist upon the matter being considered on merits in the Writ Petition. 10. In paragraph 44 of the Petition, the Petitioner has pleaded this in the context of alternate and efficacious remedy. 44. No other efficacious remedy : Huge penalties have been imposed in total disregard to the laws / regulations. The Petitioner, with the given financial position and wherewithal, cannot deposit 7.5% of the penalty amount, which works out to Rs. 3.375 Crores, for hearing his appeal. In fact, the Petitioner filed his appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and approached this Hon ble Court for a direction to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) to hear his appeal without insisting upon mandatory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble Supreme Court held that there cannot be a reduction before this 25% limit and even the High Court is not empowered to waive the pre-deposit below 25% of the debt due. 13. We were invited to look into the impugned order by the learned counsel for the parties on denying opportunity to cross-examine. This aspect is discussed in paragraphs 31.4 to 31.8 of the impugned order. The adjudicating authority has given reasons. These reasons can always be tested in the appeal, which the Petitioner has already instituted. From the perusal of the impugned order, at least prima facie, we find that this is not a case of no notice or no opportunity to defend the allegations in the show cause notice. At the highest, this is a case where the allegatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
