2016 (11) TMI 813 - AT - Customs

Tribunal orders fresh consideration of cross-examination request, emphasizes natural justice principles.

The Tribunal remanded the case for fresh consideration of the cross-examination request, emphasizing the importance of upholding natural justice ... Imposition of penalty u/s 114 and 72 and 112 of Customs Act, 1962 - 100% EOU - duty evasion - cross examination of various persons - principles of natural justice - Held that: - Ld. Commissioner has not even dealt this request of the appellant as he neither allowed the cross examination nor even rejected the request. Therefore the Ld. Commissioner has not considered the request for cross examination in the impugned order. Therefore we find that Adjudicating authority has gravely erred inasmuch as has not followed the principle of natural justice irrespective any grave nature of offence natural justice is the foremost principle which is to be complied with in any judicial/quasi judicial proceedings. Therefore the matter needs to be remand for considering request for cross examination and passing a fresh order - appeal disposed off - matter remanded. Issues involved:Challenge against penalty imposition under Sections 114, 72, and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Violation of principles of natural justice due to failure to consider cross-examination request.Analysis:The appeal was filed challenging the penalty imposed under Sections 114, 72, and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant contended that the adjudicating authority failed to consider their request for cross-examination, which was crucial as it was the basis for implicating them in a duty evasion case. The appellant's counsel argued that the failure to address this request amounted to a gross violation of natural justice. The appellant specifically requested cross-examination of individuals whose statements were relied upon, but the Commissioner did not address this request in the impugned order. The Tribunal found that natural justice principles must be upheld in all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, regardless of the severity of the offense. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of the cross-examination request, and denovo adjudication proceedings were ordered to be completed within three months, ensuring the appellant's right to a personal hearing after the cross-examination request is addressed. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of following natural justice principles in adjudication proceedings.