TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . No material given or spoken to, by Department and cross examination in no way help petitioner. Petitioner seeking cross examination, dismissed. - 19141 of 2009 and 1 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 18-8-2009 - S. Rajeswaran, J. Shri B. Sathish Sunder, for the Petitioner. Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, CGSSC, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner is a proprietorship concern. They imported Self Adhesive BOPP Tapes under 20 consignments during the period from 2006 and 2007 and had filed various Bills of Entry for clearance of the same through Chennai Port. The DRI, Chennai found that the said Self Adhesive BOPP Tapes were undervalued by the petitioner concern to evade payment of app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his counsel/Consultant sent an interim reply dated 3-4-2008 to the show cause notice sent by the respondent, denying the allegations and specifically requesting for cross-examination of the authors of the GEQD report as the show cause notice very heavily relies on the same and also the officers from DRI who recorded the statements. Though a personal hearing was granted to the petitioner, which was held on 22-7-2008, the cross-examination sought for by the petitioner was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the above writ petition has been filed for the aforesaid relief. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. T.R. Senthil Kumar, learned Central Government Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he request for cross-examination. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments to reiterate the fact that reasonable opportunity would include cross-examination also. (1) 1996 (88) E.L.T. A187 (S.C.) (Collector v. Kiran Overseas) (2) 2000 (117) E.L.T. 538 (Sounds N. Images v. Collector of Customs) (3) 2000 (122) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) (Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. v. Collector of CEx) (4) 2005 (181) E.L.T. 176 (S.C.) (Commissioner of CEx, Chandigarh v. Metro Tyres Ltd.) (5) 2000 (123) E.L.T. 50 (Bombay) (Nagraj Walchand Jain v. G. Koruthu, Collector of CEx) (6) 2000 (125) E.L.T. 129 (Madras) (M. Ponnalagu Pillai v. Collector of Customs, Madras) (7) 1996 (88) E.L.T. A187 (S.C.) (Kiran Overseas v. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent, the GEQD Officer has not done anything excepting printing out the data available in the hard discs of the petitioner's Personal Computers. Therefore, nothing else was added to the materials which were annexed to the show cause notice. The learned counsel for the respondent also produced a copy of the annexure to the show cause notice and submits that all the materials relied upon by the respondent have been furnished to the petitioner. He further submits that when the materials retrieved from the two hard discs of the Personal Computers belonged to the petitioner themselves, there was no need to cross-examine the Officers of DRI and GEQD. Therefore, the rejection of the request for cross-examination would in no way affect the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Private Ltd., Bangalore v. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and another) to reiterate the fact that the principles of natural justice do not require in the matter of seizure of goods under Sea Customs Act, the persons who have given information should be examined in the presence of the person from whom the seizure was made or should be allowed to be cross-examined by him on the statements made before the Customs authorities. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the case in hand does not require cross examination of the officers from DRI and GEQD and the writ petition does not merit any consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the rival submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Judge of this Court has held that cross-examination of witnesses are not to be dispensed with only on the ground that the subject matter is a sensitive issue. I am of the considered view that the said judgment is distinguishable on facts and law from the case on hand. While challenging the final order passed by the respondent, the petitioner has taken a stand that the denial of cross-examination of the officers from DRI and GEQD would violate the principles of natural justice. A perusal of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1973) 2 SCC 438 (cited supra) and Division Bench of this Court in (2009) 4 MLJ 417 (cited supra) would clearly show that the principles of natural justice do not require cross-examination of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
