2016 (3) TMI 432 - HC - Customs

Court orders cross-examination in customs case, stresses witness rights

Him Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Principal Commissioner of Customs

The Court set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order denying cross-examination by the Commissioner of Customs, directing the appearance of the individuals ... Validity of Adjudicating Authority's order - Cross-examination of persons request declined - Partners of the importer acted in collusion with the Petitioner in making the illegal imports - Held that:- it is an admitted fact that the Respondent Department is placing considerable reliance on the statements of Mr. Shyam Lal and Ms. Preeti, the partners of the importer, in support of the case made out in the SCN. The impugned order of the AA does not indicate that any prejudice would be caused to the Department by providing the Petitioner the right of cross-examination. On the other hand the denial of such right would prejudice the Petitioner since the said statements are adverse to the Petitioner. Therefore, the AA order declining the request of the petitioner for cross-examination of persons is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant Issues:- Denial of cross-examination by the Commissioner of CustomsDetailed Analysis:Issue: Denial of cross-examination by the Commissioner of CustomsThe case involved a challenge to an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Adjudication) ICD Import Thuglakabad, where the Petitioner's request for cross-examination of two individuals was declined. These individuals had provided statements relied upon in proceedings against the Petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner relied on a decision by CESTAT stating that denying the right to cross-examine witnesses does not violate natural justice principles. The Petitioner sought cross-examination based on Section 138 B of the Customs Act, citing relevant case laws like Flevel International v. Commissioner of Central Excise and others. The Court considered the legal position under Section 138 B and Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the right to cross-examine witnesses. It noted that the denial of cross-examination could prejudice the Petitioner. The Court set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order and directed the appearance of the individuals for cross-examination within two weeks. The Petitioner was instructed to conclude cross-examination within one week, and the adjudication proceedings were extended by two months from the cross-examination's conclusion.This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the judgment, focusing on the denial of cross-examination by the Commissioner of Customs and the legal principles governing the right to cross-examine witnesses in adjudication proceedings.