Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2017 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 882 - HC - CustomsPenalty u/s 112 (b)(1) of CA - smuggling of gold bars - It is alleged in the SCN that the petitioner has abetted the alleged illegal transaction of dealing in gold bars knowingly that they are smuggled. To the show cause dated 25.10.2014, the petitioner caused a reply on 15.01.2015 refuting the allegations - principles of natural justice - Held that: - the petitioner is not questioning the statutory competency or jurisdiction of the adjudicating Authority to adjudicate the matter. The only dispute is with regard to the liability of the petitioner to pay penalty and even assuming he is liable, then the quantum. These are all the questions involving factual aspect which are to be considered and decided only by the next fact finding authority, namely, the Appellate Authority, here in this case, CESTAT, Chennai. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to canvass the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority before the Appellate Tribunal by raising all the contentions. Principles of Natural Justice - Held that: - the Adjudicating Authority has dealt with in detail as to why such request is rejected by relying on certain case laws. In any event, as the Appellate Authority is also a fact finding authority, certainly, the petitioner is entitled to canvass before such authority as to how such denial of cross examination of those two persons, has resulted in affecting his interest. If the request for cross examination was not at all considered, then it is a different matter to say that there is a violation of principles of natural justice. On the other hand, if such request is considered and rejected on some reasons and findings, then it is for the next fact finding authority to go into the same to find out as to whether such reasonings and findings are justifiable or not. Therefore, at this stage, this court is not inclined to go into such question and give any finding on the same. The present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has to exhaust the alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the CESTAT - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
|