Court affirms right to appeal despite lack of cross-examination, allows appeal within two months

The court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming the appellant's right to appeal before the Appellate Commissioner. The court held that the denial of cross-examination did not invalidate the impugned order due to the appellant's admissions. Quasi-judicial proceedings can rely on the preponderance of probability, and strict rules of evidence do not apply. The appellant was granted liberty to file an appeal within two months.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice by not producing witnesses for cross-examination.
2. Legitimacy of the impugned Order in Original No.TCP/Cus.PRV/JTC/055-17.
3. Appellant's right to appeal before the Appellate Commissioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant argued that the impugned order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as the individuals whose statements were relied upon in the show cause notice were not produced for cross-examination. These individuals included the appellant's partners, former employees, and the brother of a partner, who had allegedly facilitated the smuggling of gold. The appellant's counsel cited several precedents, including *Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II (2016) 15 SCC 785*, where the denial of the right to cross-examine was deemed untenable. However, the court noted that the appellant had made certain admissions regarding his involvement, which diminished the necessity of cross-examining the co-accomplices.

2. Legitimacy of the Impugned Order:
The impugned order imposed penalties and ordered confiscation of goods under Sections 111 (a), (d), (e), 112, and 119 of the Customs Act, 1962. The statements of the co-accomplices were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, and some had retracted their statements only to later affirm them. The court emphasized that in quasi-judicial proceedings, strict rules of evidence do not apply, and decisions can be based on the preponderance of probability and available evidence. The court also referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including *Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 508*, which held that a confession, even if retracted, binds the confessor and does not necessarily require cross-examination of witnesses.

3. Appellant's Right to Appeal:
The court held that the appellant has an effective remedy by way of appeal before the Appellate Commissioner. The Appellate Commissioner can examine the records and come to a just conclusion. The court emphasized that the scope of interference under Article 226 is limited and that the appellant should place all legal and factual submissions before the Appellate Commissioner. The court dismissed the writ appeal, giving the appellant liberty to file an appeal within two months from the date of the order.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming that the appellant should explore the remedy of appeal before the Appellate Commissioner. The court concluded that the denial of cross-examination did not vitiate the impugned order, especially given the appellant's own admissions. The court also noted that quasi-judicial proceedings are not bound by strict rules of evidence and can rely on the preponderance of probability. The appellant was given liberty to file an appeal within two months.

---