Writ challenge to customs adjudication and denial of cross-examination: petitioners directed to pursue appellate remedy within four weeks.

Writ challenge to customs adjudication raised denial of opportunity for cross-examination and non-supply of relied documents. The court treated availability of an alternative efficacious remedy as determinative and directed petitioners to raise all contentions before the appellate authority, thereby relegating them to appeal; this preserves the merits for the appellate forum. The court further held that, given the adjudicating authoritys prior denial of cross-examination, remand would be an empty formality and refused to remand on that ground; instead the appellate authority may call for a remand report if it deems cross-examination necessary. Time spent in litigation will be treated as bona fide and petitioners granted four weeks to file appeals without raising delay.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Denial of cross-examination.
3. Non-supply of relied upon documents.
4. Availability of alternative efficacious remedy.

Summary:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioners challenged the Order-in-original dated 29.11.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2-Principal Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad, on the grounds of breach of principles of natural justice. The petitioners contended that they were not provided an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and co-noticees, and the relied upon documents were not supplied despite repeated requests. The petitioners argued that this non-compliance with natural justice principles rendered the order invalid.

2. Denial of Cross-Examination:
The petitioners sought cross-examination of co-noticees Ms. Nita Parmar and Mr. Rutugna Trivedi, whose statements were crucial to the case. The adjudicating authority denied this request in the impugned order, stating that the statements of these individuals did not implicate the petitioners and that no specific reasons were given for the cross-examination request. The petitioners argued that this denial was contrary to established legal precedents and amounted to a violation of their rights.

3. Non-Supply of Relied Upon Documents:
The petitioners claimed that the documents retrieved from a pen drive seized from Ms. Nita Parmar's premises were not provided to them, despite being referenced in the show-cause notice. They contended that merely offering inspection of these documents was insufficient and did not comply with the principles of natural justice. The petitioners maintained that these documents were essential for their defense and that their non-supply prejudiced their case.

4. Availability of Alternative Efficacious Remedy:
The respondent argued that the petitioners had an alternative efficacious remedy available under section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, and that the writ petitions should not be entertained. The respondent cited various legal precedents to support this contention, emphasizing that the petitioners should have approached the appellate authority instead of filing writ petitions. The court agreed with this view, noting that the petitioners could raise all their contentions before the appellate authority, which is competent to adjudicate on such matters.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that despite the maintainability of the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners should be relegated to the alternative remedy of filing appeals before the appellate authority. The court observed that the adjudicating authority had already decided to deny cross-examination and that remanding the matter back would be an empty formality. The petitions were disposed of with liberty for the petitioners to file appeals within four weeks, and the interim relief was extended till 31.07.2024.

---