Denial of cross-examination vitiates customs adjudication when witness statements are relied on to establish liability.

Denial of cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were relied upon in customs adjudication vitiated the order. The Court held that, where witness evidence is used to establish liability, the affected party is entitled to cross-examine those witnesses; refusing that request amounts to procedural irregularity. Because the statements were used against the petitioners and cross-examination was denied, the adjudication could not stand. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after granting a proper hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether denial of cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were relied upon in the adjudication order vitiated the order and warranted a fresh decision.

Analysis: The writ petition challenged the customs adjudication order on the ground that the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The Court held that a party is entitled to cross-examine witnesses produced by the other side, particularly where their evidence is relied upon to establish liability. Since the statements of the witnesses were used against the petitioners and the requested cross-examination was denied, the proceedings were affected by procedural irregularity.

Conclusion: The impugned order was vitiated and the proceedings were required to be heard and decided afresh after granting the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded, and the matter was remitted for de novo adjudication.

---