2010 (4) TMI 348 - HC - Customs

Natural Justice- The Revenue is mainly aggrieved by the observations directing an opportunity of cross-examination of witnesses holding it to be a part of principles of natural justice. Held that- right to cross examine witness a part of principles of natural justice and an effective weapon to prove ones defence. Cross examination well recognized as part of fair hearing. Refusal considered as denial of natural justice. No fault in Tribunal s view considering factual context. Revenue s appeal rejected.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order remanding the matter for de novo enquiry with directions for cross-examination.
- Dispute over the necessity of cross-examination as part of natural justice.
- Consideration of the time recorded in the Panchanama for defense.

Analysis:
1. Order Remanding for De Novo Enquiry:
The appeal was directed against an order remanding the matter for a fresh enquiry with specific directions for cross-examination of witnesses. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the adjudication order and requiring cross-examination, as the adjudicating authority had previously found it unnecessary. The Senior Counsel for the Revenue argued that the order was erroneous, illegal, and should be quashed. However, the Counsel for the respondent emphasized that the right to cross-examine is fundamental to the defense and a part of natural justice principles. The Tribunal's direction for cross-examination was deemed justified in light of the facts presented.

2. Necessity of Cross-Examination:
The core issue revolved around the necessity of cross-examination as part of natural justice. The respondent argued that the time recorded in the Panchanama was crucial for establishing the defense, especially concerning the interception of the passenger before or after crossing the green channel. The discrepancy in the flight's landing time and the passenger's interception time highlighted the relevance of cross-examination to prove the defense. The Tribunal's decision to allow cross-examination was supported by the argument that it was essential for a fair hearing and proving one's defense.

3. Consideration of Panchanama Time for Defense:
The time recorded in the Panchanama was a significant factor in determining the defense in the case. The respondent highlighted the importance of this time in establishing the sequence of events and the passenger's location concerning the green channel. The Tribunal's direction to consider the time recorded in the Panchanama for cross-examination was deemed appropriate and in line with principles of natural justice. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that cross-examination is a crucial aspect of fair hearing and defense.

4. Judgment and Writ Petition:
After hearing both parties, the High Court found no substantial question of law in the appeal and rejected it for lack of merit. The Court also mentioned a Writ Petition filed by the respondent, which was partly allowed, resulting in slight modifications to the impugned order. The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded, concluding the legal proceedings on the matter.