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>Supreme Court Grants Petitioners Cross-Examination Opportunity</h1> <h3>Vijayaraj Surana Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-III</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned order, and granted the petitioners six weeks to respond to the show cause notices. The ... Natural justice - whether the respondent is justified in rejecting the request made by the petitioners to cross-examine the three persons whose names have been mentioned? - Held that: - statements have been recorded by the respondent from those three persons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the matter is at the threshold. Therefore, while adjudicating the show cause notices, if the respondent propose to rely any of those statements, the petitioners should be given fair opportunity, because the show cause notices appear to be solely based upon the statements recorded from those three persons. Therefore, in my view, the facts of the present case would require opportunities to the petitioners to cross-examine those three persons, in the event the respondent proposes to rely upon their statements. If the respondent does not propose to rely upon those statements while adjudicating the show cause notices, then the question of affording an opportunity of cross-examination would not arise - opportunity to cross examine provided - petition allowed - matter on remand. Issues:Request for quashing order by petitioners and permission for cross-examination of witnesses.Analysis:The petitioners sought to quash an order passed by the respondent and requested permission to cross-examine three witnesses. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seized gold bars from one individual, leading to inquiries with a company where the petitioners were either the Managing Director or employees. Show cause notices were issued to the petitioners based on statements obtained during the investigation. The petitioners requested permission to cross-examine the witnesses, but the respondent refused, citing the voluntary nature of the statements made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The impugned order referenced a Supreme Court decision stating that providing an opportunity for cross-examination is not mandatory.The main issue was whether the respondent was justified in rejecting the petitioners' request for cross-examination based on the grounds mentioned in the impugned order. The Supreme Court case of Kanungo & Co. was cited, emphasizing that the principles of natural justice may not be violated if the opportunity for cross-examination is not granted. However, each case must be assessed based on its unique circumstances. In this case, since the show cause notices heavily relied on the statements of the three witnesses, the petitioners should be given a fair opportunity to cross-examine them if the respondent intends to rely on those statements during adjudication.The judgment allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned order, and granted the petitioners six weeks to respond to the show cause notices. The petitioners were also given the opportunity for a personal hearing where they could request to cross-examine the witnesses if the respondent planned to rely on their statements. The decision highlighted the importance of providing a fair opportunity for cross-examination in cases where statements play a significant role in the proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
