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
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Court dismisses writ petition challenging denial of cross-examination rights under Customs Act, 1962</h1> <h3>MANI BHADRAS TRADING CO. Versus CC. (SEAPORTS - EXPORTS), CHENNAI</h3> MANI BHADRAS TRADING CO. Versus CC. (SEAPORTS - EXPORTS), CHENNAI - 2010 (251) E.L.T. 194 (Mad.) Issues:- Denial of cross-examination rights to the petitioner by the respondent under the Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:1. The petitioner, a proprietorship concern, imported Self Adhesive BOPP Tapes under 20 consignments during 2006-2007, undervaluing them to evade customs duty. The DRI found evidence of misdeclaration through a forensic analysis of hard discs seized from the petitioner's premises.2. The petitioner requested cross-examination of the GEQD report authors and DRI officers during the adjudication process, citing the need for a reasonable opportunity and principles of natural justice. The respondent denied this request, leading to the writ petition challenging the denial.3. The petitioner argued that denial of cross-examination violated natural justice principles, citing various judgments supporting the right to cross-examine in quasi-judicial proceedings. The respondent contended that materials annexed to the show cause notice were from the petitioner's computers, making cross-examination unnecessary.4. The Court considered the necessity of cross-examination in the case, emphasizing that the documents relied upon by the respondent were prints from the petitioner's computers. The Court found no substantial reason for cross-examination, as discrepancies could be addressed without it.5. Relying on precedents, the Court held that the denial of cross-examination did not violate natural justice principles, as the respondent's reliance on materials from the petitioner's computers did not necessitate cross-examination. The writ petition was dismissed, emphasizing the lack of material warranting interference for cross-examination rights.