BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
Rajkumar Gowthaman - Appellant
Versus
The Joint Commissioner of Customs(Preventive), O/o. Commissioner of Customs, Tiruchirappalli - Respondent
W.P.(MD)No. 3009 of 2020 & W.M.P(MD).Nos. 2548 of 2020 & 8919 of 2021
Decided On : 28-05-2022
CUSTOMS ACT - ADJUDICATION - CROSS-EXAMINATION - DENIAL - FATALITY - APPEAL REMEDY - MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETITION - PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE - SECTION 108 - SECTION 112 - SECTION 129A - ARTICLE 20 - ARTICLE 21 - ARTICLE 226 - CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of adjudication passed by the customs authorities imposing a penalty on him under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, on the ground that he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine two persons whose statements were heavily relied upon by the customs in the adjudication process. The petitioner contended that the denial of cross-examination was a violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and that the impugned order was liable to be set aside.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the denial of cross-examination, though a serious flaw, does not necessarily make the order null and void. The court further held that the petitioner had not exhausted his statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and that the writ petition was not maintainable. The court also observed that the petitioner could have assisted the adjudicating authority in ensuring the presence of the witnesses for cross-examination and that the absence of the witnesses could not be solely attributed to the customs authorities.
Issues: 1. Whether the denial of cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were heavily relied upon by the customs authorities in the adjudication process was a violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the impugned order was liable to be set aside on the ground of denial of cross-examination? 3. Whether the petitioner was required to exhaust his statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority/Tribunal before filing a writ petition?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The denial of cross-examination, though a serious flaw, does not necessarily make the order null and void. The court must consider whether the denial of cross-examination caused prejudice to the aggrieved person. 2. The impugned order was not liable to be set aside solely on the ground of denial of cross-examination, especially when the petitioner had not exhausted his statutory remedy of appeal. 3. The petitioner was required to exhaust his statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority/Tribunal before filing a writ petition, as the issues involved in the case required a detailed examination of facts and circumstances.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The court held that the petitioner could challenge the impugned order by preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority/Tribunal, which would decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by the findings and observations made by the court in the writ petition.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in respect of the adjudication order passed by the respondent in C.No.VIII/10/17/2016, dated 13.12.2019 and quash the same.)
The necessary facts, which are required to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:
On 28.10.2015, based on the specific input received from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai Zone, surveillance on the movement of vehicles were mounted in the Pattukkottai-Thanjavur Highway, where, the officers of the customs identified and intercepted a TATA Indica Vista car bearing Registration No.TN-47-AD-7027 at Pulavankadu. Two persons were inside the vehicle, namely, M.Karthikeyan of Karur and A.Sheik Fareed of Pallapatti, Karur District. On a reasonable belief, in pursuant to the intelligence, since the smuggling of gold were not denied by the two persons, the car along with the occupants were taken to the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Thanjavur, for detailed examination.
2. On the thorough examination of the vehicle in the presence of two independent witnesses and the suspects, the officers of the revenue noticed 12 packets wrapped with white colour adhesive tapes kept concealed under the back seat of the car. Subsequently, the occupants said to have admitted that the boxes contained gold smuggled from Srilanka via Muthupettai sea shore and received by a person, by name, one Raj near Thambikottai and they were meant for onward carriage/transportation to Chennai.
3. Thereafter on opening the boxes, the officers found that the 12 packets contained 104 yellow coloured metal biscuits and bars. Upon examination of the same 80 biscuits were found to be gold biscuits with foreign markings and 24 numbers of yellow coloured metal bars in crude form and thereafter, the gold Assayer assessed the biscuits and certified that all the 80 pieces of foreign marked gold biscuits have purity of 24 carat and 24 numbers of yellow coloured metal bars were gold bars in crude form with the purity of 24 carat. He also ascertained the total weight of the 80 pieces of foreign marked gold biscuits as 8000 grams (each 100 grams) and the total weight of 24 pieces of gold bars in crude form as 7229 grams and altogether weighing 15229 grams. The total value of the goods was also arrived at Rs.4,12,70,590/- based on the prevailing market rate of Rs.2,710/- per gram of 24 carat gold.
4. Pursuant to this incident, actions were initiated against those two persons, and also against some other persons, based on the input the customs received from those two persons. Ultimately, an adjudication proceedings went on and an adjudication order was passed by the customs on 31.03.2017, where, the goods, which were seized, were ordered for absolute confiscation including the packaging material as well as the vehicle, that is, TATA Indica Vista car, under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short 'the Act') and the authorities also imposed a penalty under Section 112 of the Act, on three persons, namely, one Siddique Gani imposing a penalty of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) under Section 112(a) of the Act, and against the two other persons, namely, Sheik Fareed and Karthikeyan, who were present in the car at the time of seizure, a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-(Rupees fifty lakhs only) each, under Section 112(b) of the Act.
5. Pursuant to the said adjudication process and the order of adjudication passed on 31.03.2017, based on the input supplied by them implicating the petitioner herein, the Customs has come forward to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner on 08.09.2017.
6. The said show cause notice was under challenge in W.P.No. 26000 of 2017 filed by the petitioner herein before the Principal Bench of this Court, where, initially by order, dated 05.10.2017 an interim order not to precipitate the matter further was ordered, and thereaf
AI
The denial of cross-examination in quasi-judicial proceedings does not inherently violate natural justice, especially when alternative remedies are available.
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....
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....
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....
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.
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 ....
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.