2006 (8) TMI 464 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of cross-examination of material witnesses.
2. Rejection of evidence supporting proof of export and fulfillment of export obligation.
3. Delay in passing the adjudication order.
4. Violation of principles of 'Natural Justice' regarding cross-examination.
5. Remand of the matter for re-adjudication.

Analysis:
1. The appellants contested the denial of cross-examination of material witnesses in a case involving alleged mis-use of goods imported under Annual Advance Licences. They argued that the Commissioner's observation of their request for cross-examination as delaying tactics was unjustified. The appellants emphasized the importance of cross-examination based on principles of 'Natural Justice' when the Revenue relied on witness statements. They sought a remand for re-adjudication with an opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses.

2. The appellants presented voluminous evidence to support proof of export and fulfillment of export obligation under Advance Licences. However, the evidence was disregarded in the impugned order, leading to the contention that the order was not adequately reasoned or supported by findings. The appellants urged for a re-adjudication, emphasizing the need for the Commissioner to consider their evidence and cited judgments, and grant relief regarding export obligation fulfillment.

3. The delay of over one year and seven months in passing the adjudication order was highlighted. The appellants argued that the extended duration without providing reasons for denying cross-examination of co-noticee witnesses was a violation of 'Natural Justice'. The delay and lack of proper justification for rejecting cross-examination were deemed as clear violations of principles of 'Natural Justice'.

4. The rejection of cross-examination based on witnesses being co-noticees was challenged as insufficient grounds for denial. The appellants contended that all persons whose statements were recorded should have been permitted for cross-examination, emphasizing the breach of 'Natural Justice' principles. The importance of granting the opportunity for cross-examination in such cases was underscored.

5. After a thorough review, the Tribunal found the denial of cross-examination to be a violation of 'Natural Justice'. The order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration. The appellants were granted an opportunity for cross-examination, with a directive for re-adjudication within four months. The Commissioner was instructed to examine the evidence and citations presented by the appellants and issue a speaking order following the principles of 'Natural Justice'.