Cross-examination and natural justice under customs law can sustain writ jurisdiction despite an appellate remedy.

The availability of an alternative appellate remedy under customs law does not by itself bar writ jurisdiction where breach of natural justice is alleged. In this context, the writ petition was held maintainable. Where the adjudicating authority relies on a witness statement, refusal to permit requested cross-examination of that material witness can amount to a denial of fair hearing. Because the noticee had participated at the hearing stage and the request was recorded but not granted, the adjudication was treated as vitiated by breach of natural justice and was set aside, leaving the matter open for fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite availability of an appeal under the customs law. (ii) Whether denial of cross-examination of the witness relied upon in the adjudication order vitiated the order for breach of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite availability of an appeal under the customs law.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not by itself bar writ jurisdiction. Where breach of natural justice is alleged, or where the impugned order is otherwise shown to be vitiated, the writ court may entertain the petition notwithstanding an appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether denial of cross-examination of the witness relied upon in the adjudication order vitiated the order for breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority relied on the statement of a person, the petitioner sought cross-examination, and the request was recorded but not granted. Since the petitioner had participated at the hearing stage, the refusal could not be justified merely by reference to non-participation at the show cause stage. Denial of an opportunity to cross-examine the material witness in these circumstances amounted to a breach of natural justice.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was vitiated by breach of the principles of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication was set aside and the matter was left open to be proceeded with afresh in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an adjudicatory authority relies on a witness statement, denial of a requested cross-examination to a participating noticee can amount to a breach of natural justice and vitiate the order; the availability of an appellate remedy does not by itself exclude writ jurisdiction in such a case.

---