Sanjeev Maggu vs Commissioner Of Customs Air Cargo ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 494 Del

Delhi High Court

Sanjeev Maggu vs Commissioner Of Customs Air Cargo ... on 19 January, 2024

Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva

Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva

                          $~66
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          %                                                  Date of decision
                                                                                     decision: 19.01.2024
                          ,,,,,,,,,,




                          +            W.P.(C) 855/2024
                                               855      & CM APPL. 3617/2024 and CM APPL.
                                       3618/2024

                          SANJEEV MAGGU                                                      ..... Petitioner

                                                   versus

                          COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AIR CARGO COMPLEX
                          EXPORTS, NEW CUSTOM
                          HOUSE, NEW DELHI                    ..... Respondent

                          Advocates who appeared in this case:
                          For the Petitioner:               Mr. Akhil Krishan Maggu, Mr. Vikas Sareen, Ms.
                                                            Maninder Kaur, Ms. Oshin Maggu and Mr. Sidhant
                                                            Krishna Yadav, Advocates.
                          For the Respondent:               Mr. Rajesh Mishra, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr.
                                                            Rahul Bansal, Mr. Parvesh Bansal, Ms. Ankita R.
                                                            Mishra and Ms. Chetna Singhal, Advocates..

                          CORAM:-
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
                                                   JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to permit cross-examination examination of witnesses.

2. Petitioner is engaged in the business of customs brokerage. A show cause notice dated 29.06.2022 was issued to the petitioner under

Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 ["the Act"].

3. Said aid show cause notice led to several rounds rounds of litigation. For the present purposes, we may refer to an order dated 16.09.2022 passed in W.P. (C) 12333/2022, filed by the petitioner, wherein this Court directed respondent/revenue to furnish copies of all documents referred to in paragraph 79 of the the show cause notice, which were in their physical possession. They were also required to clearly indicate documents which were not available in their record. Upon supply of documents, petitioners were required to file a final reply within two weeks thereafter.

ter. The adjudicating authority was directed to fix a date for cross examination of the witnesses referred to in paragraph 79 (B to H).

4. We are informed that an interim reply has already been filed by the petitioner.

5. Petitioner etitioner seeks a direction to the respondent ondent to permit further cross-examination examination of witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that refusal to grant an opportunity to cross cross-examine the witnesses is prejudicial to the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for respondent submits that all the wi witnesses referred to in paragraph 79 (B to H) were summoned. 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 O witnesses who appeared (11 out of 18

18) have been

cross-examined examined at length by the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the the petitioner submits that the Adjudicating Authority uthority has now closed the right of further cross examination of other witnesses and has required the petitioner to file written submissions within 10 days.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner apprehends that no personal hearing is likely to be extended to the petitioner. He submits sub that he would be satisfied in case time is enlarged to file final written submissions and a personal hearing is given to the petitioner.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions, submits that Adjudicating Authority Authority shall grant a personal hearing to the petitioner after the the response being filed by the petitioner.

10. 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 adjudicating authority dated 11.01.2024. Reply, if any, be filed ed within two weeks from today i.e. on or before 02.02.2024. Thereafter, the adjudicating authority shall fix a date of personal hearing not before one week of 02.02.2024.

11. It is clarified that in case no reply is filed by the petitioner by 02.02.2024, a personal personal hearing shall nonetheless be granted without any further opportunity to the petitioner to file the reply.

12. It is further clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented on the merits of the contentions of the either party. All rights and nd contentions of the parties are reserved.

13. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

terms

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

RAVINDER DUDEJA DUDEJA, J

January 19,, 2024/vp