9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r observe that the Appellants have been unable to prove how the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine the Department Officers had caused prejudice to the Appellants in the presentcase.
Absence of cross-examination of the Departmental Officers has not caused any prejudice to the Appellants in the present matter and not allowing the cross-examination was not fatal to the adjudication proceedings. We therefore find the impugned Interlocutory Orders to be maintainable and sustainable. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sary that principles of natural justice should be applied in a straightjacket in every case.Ld. Counsel argued that principle of natural justice does not require that cross-examination of departmental officers should necessarily be allowed in the present matter.Ld. Counsel relied on Kanungo & Co versus Collector of Customs, (1973) 2 SCC 438 and Telstar Travels Pvt Ltd versus Enforcement Directorate, (2013) 9 SCC 549 to press his case.Ld. Counsel pleaded to dismiss the present appeals and confirm the Impugned Orders. We have duly considered the rival submissions and the applications and the pleadings thereupon. We have perused the Impugned Orders and the judgments of the Hon'ble Writ Courts relied upon by the parties in the present proceedings. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants has argued that the Impugned Orders are not maintainable as it they in breach of the Principles of Natural Justice, as the Appellants were denied the opportunity to cross-examine the departmental officers.We are unable to agree with the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellants. We observe that the denial of the cross-examination of the departmental officers has not violated the principles of Natur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the principles of natural justice which are grounded on the doctrine of procedural fairness, accuracy of outcome leading to general social goals, etc. Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for some reason - perhaps because the evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling - it is felt that a fair hearing 'would make no difference' - meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decisionmaker - then no legal duty to supply a hearing arises. Such an approach was endorsed by Lord Wilberforce in Malloch v. Aberdeen Corporation[(1971) 2 All ER 1278 (HL)], who said that a 'breach of procedure...cannot give (rise to) a remedy in the courts, unless behind it there is something of substance which has been lost by the failure. The court does not act in vain'. Relying on these comments, Brandon LJ opined in Cinnamond v. British Airports Authority[(1980) 2 All ER 368 (CA)] that 'no one can complain of not being given an opportunity to make representations if such an opportunity would have availed him nothing'. In such situations, fair procedures appear to serve no purpose since 'right' result can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d when there is, in fact, no prejudice caused. This conclusion must be drawn by the Court on an appraisal of the facts of a case, and not by the authority who denies natural justice to a person. 42.5. The "prejudice" exception must be more than a mere apprehension or even a reasonable suspicion of a litigant. It should exist as a matter of fact, or be based upon a definite inference of likelihood of prejudice flowing from the nonobservance of natural justice." The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Telestar Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. Special Director of Enforcement, 2013 AIR SCW 1304, has held that denial of request to cross-examine the witnesses by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority did not violate the principles of natural justice. "20. Coming to the case at hand, the Adjudicating Authority has mainly relied upon the statements of the appellants and the documents seized in the course of the search of their premises. But, there is no dispute that apart from what was seized from the business premises of the appellants the Adjudicating Authority also placed reliance upon documents produced by Miss Anita Chotrani and Mr. Raut. These documents were, it is admitted disclosed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding paragraphs we observe that Appellants have been unable to prove how the cross-examination of theDepartmental Officials would have changed the outcome of the case, or by being denied the opportunity to cross-examine, they were adversely impacted during the Adjudication proceedings. We further observe that the Appellants have been unable to prove how the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine the Department Officers had caused prejudice to the Appellants in the presentcase. We observe that the Appellants have failed to plead and prove how the denial of the cross examination of the Departmental Officers had caused prejudice to the Appellants and resulted in miscarriage of justice. The Appellants have not questioned the credibility or integrity of the Departmental Officers. We further observe that the role of the Departmental Officers was limited to the recoding of the statements, and was notconcerned with the substance of the statements so recorded under Customs Act or FERA. We furthermore observe that it is unlikely that the Departmental Officers would have admitted that the statements were recorded under coercion, duress or inducement. Therefore, the cross-examination of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
