AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J
The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to permit cross-examination of witnesses.
Petitioner is engaged in the business of customms brokerage. A show cause notiice dated 29.06.2022 was issued to the petitioner under Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 [“the Act”].
Said showw cause notice led to several rounds of litigation. For the present purrposes, we may refer to an order dated 16.09.2022 passed in W.P. (C) 12333/2022, filed by the petitionner, wherein this Court directed respondent/revenue to furnish copies of all documents referred to in paragraph 79 of the show cause noticee, which were in their physical possession. They were also required to clearly indicate documents whicch were not available in their record. Upon supply of documents, petiitioners were required to file a final reply within two weeks thereafterr. The adjudicating authority was direccted to fix a date for cross examination of the witnesses referred to in paragraph 79 (B to H).
We are innformed that an interim reply has already been filed by the petitioner.
Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to permit further cross-examination of witnesses. Learned counsel foor the petitioner submits that reefusal to grant an opportunity to crooss-examine the witnesses is prejjudicial to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for respondent submits that all the witnesses referred to in p aragraph 79 (B to H) were summoneed. Some of the witnesses failed to appear despite repeated summons. He submits that the witnesses probably did not appear because they were supporting the petitioner. Other witnesses who appeared (11 out of 18) have been cross-examined at length by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Adjudicating Authority has now closed the right of further cross examination of other witnessess and has required the petitioner to file written submissions within 10 days.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner apprehends thatt no personal hearing is likely to be extended to the petitioner. He submits that he would be satisfied in case time is enlarged to file final written submissions and a personal hearing is given to the petiitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on instr uctions, submits that Adjudicati ng Authority shall grant a personal hearing to the petitioner after the response being filed by the petitioner.
In view of the above, the petition is disposed of enlarging the time for the petitioner to file final written submissions, as directed by order of the adjuudicating authority dated 11.01.2024. Reply, if any, be filed within tw o weeks from today i.e. on or beffore 02.02.2024. Thereafter, the adjudicating authority shall fix a date of personal hearing not befoore one week of 02.02.2024.
It is clarified that in case no reply is filed by the petitioner by 02.02.2024, a personal hearing shall nonetheless be granted without any further oppoortunity to the petitioner to file the replly.
It is furthher clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented on the merits of the contentions of the either party. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.
The petition is disposed of in the above terms.