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>Court upholds Customs Commissioner's cross-examination discretion, petitioner can challenge adverse orders.</h1> <h3>MR ANIL KHEMCHAND CHAUDHARY Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT)</h3> MR ANIL KHEMCHAND CHAUDHARY Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) - TMI Issues:1. Petition seeking directions for cross-examination of co-noticee.2. Pending adjudication proceedings before the Commissioner of Customs.3. Request for cross-examination of Managing Director.4. Contention raised by the petitioner for cross-examination.5. Disposition of the petition with observations.Issue 1: Petition seeking directions for cross-examination of co-noticeeThe petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, requesting directions to the Commissioner of Customs (Import) to decide on the petitioner's applications dated 21 May 2013 and 26 September 2013 for allowing cross-examination of co-noticee Mr. Kiyoshi Tatsui Oike or the new Managing Director of Yakulf Danone India Private Limited (referred to as 'YDI').Issue 2: Pending adjudication proceedings before the Commissioner of CustomsThe Additional Director General of Revenue Intelligence issued a show cause notice under the Customs Act, 1962, with the petitioner being Company Secretary of YDI and noticee No.3. The proceedings are pending before the Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai, with the petitioner seeking cross-examination of Mr. Oike, the former Managing Director of YDI.Issue 3: Request for cross-examination of Managing DirectorThe petitioner applied for cross-examination of Mr. Oike, stating the need to confront the present Managing Director of YDI with certain emails on record. The petitioner reiterated the request in a subsequent application dated 26 September 2013, either to cross-examine Mr. Oike or the current Managing Director.Issue 4: Contention raised by the petitioner for cross-examinationThe petitioner's counsel raised various contentions in support of the applications for cross-examination. However, the High Court declined to entertain the petition, emphasizing that the decision to allow cross-examination rests with the Commissioner of Customs (Import) based on the facts and evidence in the case.Issue 5: Disposition of the petition with observationsThe High Court disposed of the petition, noting that if an adverse order is passed in the adjudication proceedings, the petitioner can raise all available contentions, including the fact that applications for cross-examination were made. The Court highlighted that the Commissioner of Customs has the authority to decide on granting cross-examination based on the case's merits.In conclusion, the High Court's judgment emphasized the Commissioner of Customs' discretion in allowing cross-examination and highlighted that the petitioner can raise contentions if adverse orders are passed. The Court refrained from interfering in the pending proceedings, leaving the decision on cross-examination to the adjudicating authority.
TaxTMI 