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>Denial of right to cross-examine witnesses violates natural justice; Order quashed. Fresh proceeding ordered.</h1> <h3>SAMPAD NARAYAN MUKHERJEE Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> SAMPAD NARAYAN MUKHERJEE Versus UNION OF INDIA - 2019 (366) E.L.T. 280 (Cal.) Issues Involved:1. Breach of principles of natural justice.2. Right to cross-examine witnesses under the Customs Act, 1962.3. Relevance and admissibility of statements made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.4. Applicability of Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962 to adjudication proceedings.Detailed Analysis:Breach of Principles of Natural Justice:The petitioner challenged the order-in-original dated September 6, 2018, on the grounds of a breach of principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that the adjudicating authority denied the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, which is a fundamental aspect of natural justice. The court noted that principles of natural justice are integral to adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962, as per Section 122A, which mandates an opportunity of being heard.Right to Cross-Examine Witnesses:The petitioner contended that the adjudicating authority's refusal to allow cross-examination of witnesses who made statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, was erroneous. The petitioner cited Section 138B, which stipulates that statements made by witnesses are relevant without cross-examination only under specific conditions. The court emphasized that cross-examination is essential for the admissibility of evidence, and the right to cross-examine is part of the principles of natural justice.Relevance and Admissibility of Statements:The court examined the relevance and admissibility of statements made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. It held that such statements are distinct from those recorded by police officers under the Code of Criminal Procedure and are admissible in evidence. However, for these statements to be considered relevant in adjudication proceedings, the conditions under Section 138B must be met. The court found that the adjudicating authority did not establish that any of the conditions under Section 138B(1) were fulfilled, rendering the statements inadmissible without cross-examination.Applicability of Section 138B:The court clarified that Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962, applies to both adjudication proceedings and prosecutions. It provides exceptions to the general rule of evidence, allowing statements to be relevant without cross-examination under specific circumstances. The court noted that the adjudicating authority failed to justify the denial of cross-examination based on these exceptions.Conclusion:The court concluded that the adjudicating authority's refusal to allow cross-examination violated the principles of natural justice, rendering the order-in-original null and void. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the adjudicating authority to proceed afresh, allowing reasonable opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses as requested by the petitioner, subject to the provisions of Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to natural justice principles in adjudication proceedings and the right to cross-examine as an indefeasible right.
TaxTMI 