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>Tribunal emphasizes cross-examination for natural justice, overturns order.</h1> <h3>RATTAN SINGH AND SONS Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI</h3> RATTAN SINGH AND SONS Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI - 1988 (34) E.L.T. 357 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:1. Legality of the confiscation of goods under the Customs Act.2. Validity of the opinion of the Director General of Archaeological Survey of India (A.S.I.) as final.3. Denial of the right to cross-examine the Director General of A.S.I.4. Violation of principles of natural justice.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Confiscation of Goods under the Customs Act:The case revolves around the confiscation of ivory articles intended for export by the appellants. The Customs authorities, based on the opinion of the Director General of A.S.I., deemed nine items as antiquities and ordered their confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act. The Additional Collector of Customs also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the appellants. The confiscation was justified by the Department under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, which prohibits the export of antiquities by any person other than the Central Government or its authorized agencies.2. Validity of the Opinion of the Director General of A.S.I. as Final:The Department relied on Section 24 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, which makes the opinion of the Director General of A.S.I. final regarding whether an item is an antiquity. The Additional Collector's order was primarily based on this opinion, which certified nine items as antiquities. The appellants contested this, arguing that they were not given an opportunity to cross-examine the Director General, which they claimed was a violation of natural justice.3. Denial of the Right to Cross-examine the Director General of A.S.I.:The appellants argued that they were denied the opportunity to cross-examine the Director General, whose opinion was the sole basis for the confiscation order. They contended that this denial amounted to a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The Additional Collector had disallowed the cross-examination request, citing Section 24 of the Act, which made the Director General's opinion final. The Tribunal noted that the Director General did not provide reasons for his opinion and did not hold a formal inquiry with notice to the appellants.4. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:The Tribunal emphasized that denying the right to cross-examine the Director General, whose opinion had civil consequences for the appellants, was a violation of natural justice. The Supreme Court's observations in various cases were cited to support the argument that fairness and the opportunity to challenge evidence are fundamental to natural justice. The Tribunal concluded that the refusal to allow cross-examination resulted in grave prejudice to the appellants and warranted setting aside the Additional Collector's order.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Additional Collector dated 26-3-1984, and remitted the matter for re-adjudication. The Tribunal directed that the re-adjudication should be conducted in light of the observations regarding the necessity of cross-examination to uphold the principles of natural justice and ensure a fair hearing.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
