TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1957X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ME COURT] . No doubt, those proceedings pertain to Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1947. But then, the principle laid down in the said decision can be applied with equal force even to proceedings arising under the Customs Act of 1962. A mere look at the order dated 20.02.2018 rejecting the writ petitioner's request for cross examination starts and ends by describing Siddique Gani and Mohammed Ibrahim as co-accused. The opening line reads as With respect to the request for the cross examination of the co-accused and it ends as follows, the request for cross examination of the co-accused is denied . Admittedly, the said Siddique Gani and Mohammed Ibrahim cannot be called as co-accused - In this case, there is absolutely no conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner. Of course in the very same show cause notice dated 08.09.2017, five others including Muhammad Ibrahim also figure as co-noticees. The writ petitioner herein filed W.P.No.26000 of 2017 questioning the said show cause notice. By order dated 08.11.2017, the writ petition was disposed of with certain directions. This Court had directed the adjudicating authority to adjudicate the show cause notice without being influenced by the findings rendered in a collateral proceeding dated 31.03.2017 and proceed based on the available material and statements recorded under the Customs Act, 1962. 3. The writ petitioner initially took a stand that statements of Mohammed Ibrahim and Siddique Gani cannot be relied upon because their statements ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of setting aside the order dated 22.02.2018, rejecting the request for cross examination, the order levying penalty also would have to go automatically. He, therefore submitted that the issue has to be remitted to the file of the respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 7. The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that the issue on hand is no longer res integra. His contention is that the writ petitioner has no right to ask for cross examination of a co-noticee and that this issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, whose decisions were followed by me vide order dated 27.02.2018 in W.P.(MD) No.863 of 2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the request for the cross examination of the co-accused and it ends as follows, the request for cross examination of the co-accused is denied . Admittedly, the said Siddique Gani and Mohammed Ibrahim cannot be called as co-accused. The writ petitioner is also not figuring as an accused. Between these two sentences, the Authority has only referred to a host of case laws and there is no discussion of the facts involved. In fact, the first case law reported in 2006 (194) E.L.T. 290 (Tri.Del) referred to by the respondent states that one cannot insist on the right of cross examination and one cannot demand cross examination as a matter of right. It means that a demand can be made and it will have to be considered. In this case, there is ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
