Dismissed

Shavo Norgren (I) Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai v. Union of India Thru Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice , Dept. of Legal Affairs and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Oct 2018WP/11351/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, Shavo Norgren challenged an order rejecting its request for cross-examination of witnesses in Customs adjudication proceedings. The Court held that since adjudication relied solely on documentary evidence, no prejudice was caused. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's request for cross-examination was denied and the writ petition was dismissed.

Shavo Norgren (I) Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai Vs Union of India Thru… — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wp-11351-2018

¶2

S.R.JOSHI

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.11351 OF 2018

¶5

Shavo Norgren (I) Pvt. Ltd., .. Petitioner. v/s. Union of India .. Respondent.

¶6

Dr. Sujay Kantawala with Ms. Aishwarya Kantawala, Mr. Ashish Mehta, Ms. Karishma Ahuja and Ms. Hema Chhabra i/b. Mr. Ashish Mehta, for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ. DATE : 11^th OCTOBER, 2018.

¶9

P.C:-

¶10

This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges a communication dated 6^th September, 2018 issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Import) – Respondent No.2. By the impugned letter dated 6^th September, 2018, Petitioner's request for crossexamination of Mr. D'souza and Mr. Shete, being persons whose statements are relied upon in the show cause notice, was rejected.

¶11

2 It is the case of the Petitioner that non-granting of crossexamination, results in breach of natural justice. Therefore, this Court should interfere and direct the Respondent No.2 to grant crossexamination of the two persons i.e. Mr. D'souza and Mr. Shete. On the other hand, Mr. Jetly supports the impugned communication.

1 of 3

wp-11351-2018

S.R.JOSHI

3 We have perused the impugned order dated 6^th September, 2018. The impugned order dated 6^th September, 2018 while rejecting the application for cross-examination of Mr. D'souza and Mr. Shete, records the fact that the issue involved in the notice for adjudication, is with regard to classification of 'Valves' under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and it would be decided on the basis of documentary evidence available on record. It states as under:-

¶16

“These statements do not have the effect of changing the contours of the case as stated above; the case is based on the documentary evidences in the shape of declarations (including but not limited to description of goods) made in the shipping documents and such evidences are essentially unaffected by the statements of aforesaid two protagonists.”

¶17

4 From the aforesaid observations in the impugned communication, it is clear that the Respondent No.2 - Commissioner of Customs (Import) is not seeking to rely upon the statements of Mr. D'souza and Mr. Shete, for adjudicating the show cause notice. Therefore, in these circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned communication dated 6^th September, 2018, rejecting the Petitioner's request for cross-examination of Mr. D'souza and Mr. Shete. Thus, no prejudice is caused to the Petitioner with not giving of cross-examination of Mr. D'souza and Mr. Shete.

¶18

5 In the above view, Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶19

6 However, we make it clear that in case, at any time during the adjudication proceedings, the adjudicating authority, seeks to rely upon the statement of Mr. D'souza and Mr. Shete for the purpose of

2 of 3

wp-11351-2018

S.R.JOSHI

adjudicating the show cause notice dated 9^th February, 2018, then he would necessarily give an opportunity to the Petitioner to cross-examine Mr. D'souza and Mr. Shete.

¶24

(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA,J.)

¶25

(M.S.SANKLECHA,J.

¶26

3 of 3

Shavo Norgren (I) Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai v. Union of India Thru Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice , Dept. of Legal Affairs and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shavo Norgren (I) Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai v. Union of India Thru Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice , Dept. of Legal Affairs and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Papad Vs the Commissioner of Central Excise,Pune-Iii

Pravin Shrinivas Bhattad Vs the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur

Rajendra Babulal Malu, MD Vs the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur

The Commissioner of Customs (Import-I) Vs Medical Engineers (I) Ltd. and 2 Ors.

The Commissioner of Cgst and Cx Vs Jabs International Pvt. Ltd.

The Commissioner of Cgst and Cx Vs Gandhi Associates