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>Writ Petition Dismissed: Adherence to Statutory Remedies and Pre-Deposit Essential for Customs Act Appeals.</h1> <h3>Samuvel Chandran Versus The Commissioner of Customs and anr.</h3> Samuvel Chandran Versus The Commissioner of Customs and anr. - 2024:BHC - OS:17928 - DB Issues: Challenge to Order in Original imposing penalties under Customs Act, 1962; Violation of principles of natural justice due to denial of opportunity to cross-examine; Petitioner's inability to deposit mandatory amount for appeal; Authority's discretion in reducing pre-deposit amount; Applicability of previous judgments on similar issues.The High Court of Bombay heard a petition challenging an Order in Original that imposed penalties on the Petitioner under Sections 112 (b) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The Petitioner had filed a statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and then a Writ Petition seeking relief from the mandatory deposit requirement for the appeal. The Writ Petition was withdrawn, and a new petition was filed alleging a violation of natural justice due to the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine certain individuals involved in the case. The Respondent argued that there were other pieces of evidence establishing the Petitioner's complicity, even if the statements were excluded. The Court noted that the Petitioner had the remedy of appeal and declined to deviate from the usual rule of exhausting alternate remedies. The Court cited a previous case where a similar issue was dealt with, emphasizing the importance of following statutory remedies before seeking relief through a Writ Petition.In response to the Petitioner's argument that they could not deposit the required amount for the appeal, the Court referred to a Supreme Court case stating that the High Court does not have the power to waive the pre-deposit entirely and cannot go against the statutory provision. The Court highlighted that the Petitioner's attempt to bypass the deposit requirement through different avenues was impermissible. The Court reiterated that the statutory requirement of pre-deposit must be followed, as per the law.Regarding the issue of denial of the opportunity to cross-examine, the Court examined the impugned order and found that there was no case of 'no notice' or no opportunity to defend against the allegations. The Court noted that the denial of cross-examination could be a case of insufficient opportunity, which could be addressed in the appeal process. The Court emphasized that all matters related to the denial of cross-examination and any resulting prejudice could be examined by the Appellate Authority during the appeal process. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition but allowed the Petitioner to pursue the remedy of appeal by complying with the mandatory conditions prescribed by law. The Court clarified that its decision did not reflect on the merits of the case and kept all contentions open for further consideration.In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay dismissed the Writ Petition, emphasizing the importance of following statutory remedies and complying with mandatory conditions for appeals. The Court highlighted the significance of addressing issues like denial of cross-examination through the appropriate appellate channels rather than seeking relief directly through a Writ Petition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
