Sanjeev Maggu vs. Additional Commissioner Of Customs

Held

The Court held that the right to cross-examination is not an unfettered or absolute right and must be demonstrated to be necessary to prevent prejudice and ensure substantial justice. The Court distinguished between different categories of individuals whose cross-examination was sought. For Customs officials, it was held that they were discharging official duties and, in line with the precedent in M/s Vallabh Textiles vs. Additional Commissioner Central Tax GST, Delhi East and Ors., cannot be subjected to cross-examination as a matter of right. However, for Sh. Divakant Jha and Sh. Rajat Prabhakar (Customs Brokers) and Sh. Rohit Chaudhary and Sh. Rajesh Mehta (warehouse staff), their cross-examination was permitted, considering they could be independent parties or private individuals. The impugned order was modified to this extent. The Court directed that the cross-examination of these four individuals be conducted on specific dates, followed by an additional reply from the Petitioner and a personal hearing before adjudication.

Facts

The Petitioner, Sanjeev Maggu, filed a writ petition challenging a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated July 5, 2018, and an order dated May 7, 2019, passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs. The SCN alleged large-scale evasion of Customs Duty by diverting goods from a Customs Bonded Warehouse into the domestic market, along with forgery and fabrication of documents for re-export. The Petitioner was alleged to have created four fictitious firms and obtained Import Export Codes. The DRI conducted searches and alleged diversion of foreign liquor from warehouses, leading to duty evasion. The Petitioner sought cross-examination of several individuals, including those whose statements were recorded and Customs officials, which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to cross-examine individuals whose statements were recorded in the proceedings, specifically Sh. Lalit Dogra and Sh. Sanjay Gahlot, in light of their alleged involvement and connection with the Petitioner? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and evidence law). 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to cross-examine Customs officials named in the list, who were discharging their duties in an official capacity? (Question of law, concerning the right to cross-examination of public officials). 3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to cross-examine Sh. Divakant Jha and Sh. Rajat Prabhakar, identified as Customs Brokers, and Sh. Rohit Chaudhary and Sh. Rajesh Mehta, identified as staff members of Customs Bonded Warehouses? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the status and potential bias of these individuals). Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued for the right to cross-examine individuals whose statements were used against him, particularly Sh. Lalit Dogra and Sh. Sanjay Gehlot, who allegedly aided in duty evasion and forgery. He also sought to cross-examine Customs officials and other private individuals. Reliance was placed on prior coordinate bench orders in similar cases. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the Revenue or State. However, the Adjudicating Authority's rejection of the cross-examination request, as challenged by the Petitioner, implies the Revenue's stance was against granting such a broad right.