TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Denial of Cross-Examination Rights Violates Natural Justice Under Sec. 9-D, Case Remitted for Fresh Hearing</h1> <h3>Basudev Garg, Arun Gupta, Anil Goel Versus Commissioner of Customs</h3> Basudev Garg, Arun Gupta, Anil Goel Versus Commissioner of Customs - 2013 (294) E.L.T. 353 (Del.) , 2017 (48) S.T.R. 427 (Del.) ISSUES: Whether the denial of the right to cross-examine persons whose statements were relied upon in show-cause notices and adjudication proceedings constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice.Whether statements referred to in the show-cause notices can be regarded as relevant evidence without satisfying the exceptions under Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962.Whether reliance on an enquiry report obtained after the conclusion of the hearing, without supplying it to the appellants, violates the right to a fair hearing. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The court held that the right to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are used against a noticee is a valuable right in quasi-judicial proceedings, but this right can be denied only under exceptional circumstances as stipulated in Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962.Statements made and signed before a gazetted Customs officer are relevant for proving the truth of facts contained therein only when the conditions specified in Section 138B are met, such as when the person is dead, cannot be found, or cannot be produced without unreasonable delay or expense.The Tribunal failed to consider Section 138B and improperly dismissed the appellants' grievance regarding denial of cross-examination, thereby necessitating a fresh consideration of the matter.Reliance on a report obtained after the hearing without providing it to the appellants infringes the right to answer and meet the points raised, warranting reconsideration. RATIONALE: The court applied the legal framework under Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962, which is identical in purpose and language to Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as interpreted in prior precedent.It emphasized that the quasi-judicial authority must form an objective opinion based on sufficient material before treating such statements as relevant evidence without cross-examination, and must record reasons and provide opportunity to the noticee to make submissions.The court relied on established precedents affirming the right to cross-examination in adjudication proceedings unless exceptional statutory exceptions apply, thereby underscoring the protection of natural justice principles.The decision reflects no doctrinal shift but reiterates the necessity of adherence to procedural fairness and statutory safeguards in customs adjudication proceedings.
TaxTMI 