High Court directs revision before Joint Secretary, emphasizes natural justice principles. Appellant to present contentions and cross-examine.

The High Court directed the appellant to file a revision before the Joint Secretary as the revisional authority, emphasizing compliance with natural justice principles. The Court advised affording the appellant an opportunity to present contentions and cross-examine witnesses, ensuring disposal within three months. The appellant's misconception in approaching CESTAT was noted, and the Single Judge's directive was modified accordingly. The writ appeal was disposed of without costs, with connected petitions closed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order of confiscation and penalty under Customs Act, 1962; Rejection of request to cross-examine witnesses by Commissioner (Appeals-I); Jurisdiction of CESTAT; Misconception in approaching CESTAT instead of revisional authority; Compliance with principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the order of confiscation and penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs. The Commissioner (Appeals-I) rejected the appellant's requests to cross-examine witnesses, leading to an appeal before the CESTAT and a parallel writ petition. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal citing jurisdictional issues. The appellant contended that the Commissioner's rejection violated Rule 5 of the Customs Act, 1962, and argued that he mistakenly approached the CESTAT instead of the revisional authority. The High Court noted that only a revision lies before the Joint Secretary as the revisional authority, but due to the misconception, the appellant went to the CESTAT, which also dismissed the appeal on jurisdictional grounds.

The High Court found that the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to approach the CESTAT, although the jurisdiction lay with the Joint Secretary as the revisional authority. Despite this error, the Court observed non-compliance with principles of natural justice and the lack of a roving enquiry. Consequently, the Court advised the appellant to file a revision before the Joint Secretary, who should consider the matter afresh, afford an opportunity to the appellant, and dispose of the case within three months from the judgment's receipt. The appellant was permitted to raise all contentions and request to cross-examine witnesses before the revisional authority. Thus, the direction of the Single Judge was modified, and the writ appeal was disposed of without costs, with connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

---