IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Bhargav D. Karia, Niral R. Mehta, JJ.
Pramodgiri Premgiri Goswami – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 5090, 8631, 8633, 8708, 7511, 8689, 8858, 8829, 8878 of 2022, R/Special Civil Application No. 488, 526, 867 of 2023
Decided On : 01-04-2024
JUDGMENT :
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi assisted by learned advocates Mr.Hardik Modh and Mr. Amit Laddha, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mihir Thakore for learned advocate Ms. Khyati Chugh, learned advocate Mr.Arjun Joshi, learned advocate Mr.Dhaval Shah and learned advocate Mr.Malay Dange for the petitioners of the respective petitions and learned advocate Mr. Siddharth Dave for respondent No.2.
2. These group of petitions are filed challenging the Order-in-original dated 29.11.2021 passed by the respondent No.2- Principal Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad as the petitioners are co- noticee, these petitions are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgement and order.
3. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service of notice of rule.
4. For the sake of convenience, Special Civil Application No.5090 of 2022 is treated as the lead matter.
5. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 5090 of 2022 are as under:
5.2 The petitioner was the Director of the Private Limited Company till 30.06.2020. The company was manufacturing silver jewellery out of silver bar purchased from the domestic market.
5.3 On 04.06.2019, the Officer of Airport Intelligence Unit [‘AIU’ for short] found one Shri Jigneshkumar Govindbhai Sevalia, Assistant Duty Officer of M/s. Globe Ground India Pvt. Ltd behaving in a suspicious manner with passenger in the Aerobridge of Bay No. 32 by Ms. Rekha Sharma, Airport Operations Manager, Globe Ground India Pvt Ltd (GGI), Ahmedabad to who informed that Shri Jagdish Savaliya was found in possession of one bar of yellow metal and therefore he was required to be frisked and checked by the Custom Officers. The AIU officers recorded search proceedings of under Panchnama dated 04.06.2009 and asked Shri Jagdisbhai whether he wanted to be checked in front of executive Magistrate or Superintendent of Customs and he replied giving his consent to be searched in front of Superintendent of Customs. Thereafter, Shri Jigneshbhai Savaliya was asked to remove all metallic items worn by him or carried by him in person, since he was found carrying in his hand a cargo document pouch and on enquiry by the officers, he unwrapped the cargo document pouch and the officers found a brown coloured packet concealed within. The officers conducted personal search of Shri Jigneshbhai Savaliya and found him to be carrying on nine brown coloured packets in his blazer and waist coat worn by him and were not sealed.
5.4 Thereafter, the Officers placed nine brown coloured packets recovered from Shri Jigneshbhai Savaliya and the same was scanned using the baggage scanning machine installed in the arrival hall of Terminal 2 of SVPI Airport Ahmedabad. The officers opened the packets and found the same containing 47 yellow Gold bars; 22 pieces each of 1 kg and 25 pieces each of 100 gms; which were thereafter tested by the Government Approved Valuer and the same was determined at Rs. 8,20,75,000/- in a market value and Rs. 7,18,18,810/- being the tariff value. The God bars were seized by the Officer under panchana dated 04.06.2019. It appears from the proceedings that Shri Jigneshbhai Savaliya in his statement admitted that the said gold bars were given to him by passenger named Shri Lokesh Sharma at Aerobridge of Bay No. 32 and he was supposed to handover the said gold bars to Shri Rutugna Trivedi outside the Airport terminal.
5.5 Shri Jigneshbhai Savaliya also informed that Shri Lokesh Sharma exited the
Shri Ranchhodbhai Patel vs. Central Board of Revenue, New Delhi
A.K. HanbeenMohammed vs. Collector
Basudev Garg vs. Commissioner of Customs
Dharampal Satyapal Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of C.Ex., Gauhati
Fortune Impex vs. Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta
HarbanslalSahnia vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd
K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India and others
K.L.Tripathi vs. State Bank of India (1984) 1 SCC 43
Kanungo & Co. vs. Collector, Customs, Calcutta
Kanungo & Company vs Collector Of Customs And Ors
Kothari Filaments vs. Commissioner of Cus. (port) Kolkata
M/s. Azad Engg Works v/s Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise
M/s. Kanungo & Co. vs. Collector of Customs
M/s. Suman Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs &C.Ex., Baroda
M/s. Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai
Radhakrishna Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Shri Naresh J. Sukhawani Versus Union of India
State of Maharashtra vs. Greatship (India) Ltd
State of T.N. v. Abdullah Kadher Batcha: (2009) 1 SCC 333
The denial of cross-examination in quasi-judicial proceedings does not inherently violate natural justice, especially when alternative remedies are available.
Failure to adhere to principles of natural justice, including denial of cross-examination and opportunity to present defense evidence, warranted quashing of confiscation order and re-evaluation of th....
The court established that the provisions of the Customs Act do not guarantee an absolute right to cross-examine witnesses in adjudication proceedings, and the denial of such a right does not inheren....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in adjudication processes and highlights the requirement for a specific officer of Customs to issue show cause noti....
Breach of principles of natural justice and defiance of fundamental principles of judicial procedure falls within exceptions noticed by Supreme Court in the above decision, wherein availability of an....
The failure to provide cross-examination in adjudication proceedings under Section 138-B of the Customs Act violates natural justice unless a request for cross-examination was explicitly made by the ....
An order passed without following principles of natural justice is a nullity, and the petitioner has the right to cross-examine the witnesses on whom reliance has been placed by the authorities.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.