LAWS(CAL)-2018-9-231

AVIJIT SARKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On September 27, 2018
Avijit Sarkar Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order-in-original dated May 31, 2018 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the impugned order stands vitiated by breach of principles of natural justice. He draws the attention of the Court to the fact that, the petitioner appeared subsequent to the initial show cause notice on the first date of hearing. The proceeding was adjourned to the next date. Before the final order being passed, it submitted a letter dated May 28, 2018 with the adjudicating authority requesting for cross-examination of the witness of the prosecution. He submits that, such letter was received by the adjudicating authority. Despite receipt of such letter, the request for cross-examination was not considered by the impugned order. He relies upon the judgment and order dated Aug. 28, 2018 passed in W.P. No. 409 of 2018 (M/s. Modern Agency and Anr. Vs. The Chief Commissioner of Customs and Ors.) as well as the judgment and order dated Sept. 17, 2018 passed in W.P. No. 448 of 2018 (Lakshman Lal Das Vs. The Chief Commissioner of Customs and Ors.) [2019 (365) E.L.T. 72 (Cal.)] and submits that, the same show cause notice resulting in the same impugned order-in-original was the subject-matter of challenge in those two writ petitions. In both the two writ petitions, the impugned order-in-original was set aside after returning a finding that, the writ petitioners therein were denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Such writ petitioners were not permitted to cross-examine the witness of the prosecution.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the department submits that, the facts scenario in the present case is different to those obtaining in the earlier two writ petitions. In the present case, the petitioner did not appear on the second date of hearing. Therefore, the adjudicating authority was right in passing the impugned order in absence of the petitioner. Moreover, the Writ Court should consider securing the demand raised by the department.