Disposed

Sanjeev Maggu v. Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Complex-Exports, New Custom House, New Delhi

Delhi HC19 Jan 2024W.P.(C)/855/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a petition by a customs brokerage firm seeking cross-examination of witnesses and a personal hearing during proceedings under Section 72 of the Customs Act, directing the authority to grant a hearing after the reply is filed.

What did the court decide?

Time enlarged for filing final written submissions; Adjudicating Authority directed to grant personal hearing after reply is filed.

Sanjeev Maggu Vs Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo… — Customs and Excise | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~66

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of deci s ion: 19.01.2024

¶4

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

SANJEEV MA G GU

..... Petitioner

versus

COMMISSIO N ER OF CUSTOMS AIR CARGO CO M PLEX EXPORTS, NE W CUSTOM HOUSE, NEW D ELHI ..... Respondent

¶9

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶10

For the Petitioner: Mr. Akhil Krishan Maggu, Mr. Vikas Sareen, Ms. Maninder Kaur, Ms. Oshin Mag g u and Mr. Sidhant Krishna Yadav, Advocates. For the Responde n t: Mr. Rajesh Mishra, Senior Standi n g Counsel with Mr. Rahul Bansal, Mr. Parvesh Ba n sal, Ms. Ankita R. Mishra and Ms. Chetna Singhal, A d vocates..

¶11

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

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The peti t ioner seeks a direction to the resp o ndent to permit cross-examinati o n of witnesses.

¶15

Petitione r is engaged in the business of custo m s brokerage. A show cause not i ce dated 29.06.2022 was issued to the petitioner under

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

W.P.(C) 855/2024

¶18

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:2 2.01.2024 16:11:38

¶19

Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 [“the Act”].

¶20

Said sho w cause notice led to several rounds o f litigation. For the present pu r poses, we may refer to an order dated 16.09.2022 passed in W.P. (C) 12333/2022, filed by the petitio n er, wherein this Court directed r espondent/revenue to furnish copies o f all documents referred to in p a ragraph 79 of the show cause notic e , which were in their physical possession. They were also required t o clearly indicate documents whi c h were not available in their record. Upon supply of documents, pet i tioners were required to file a final r eply within two weeks thereafte r . The adjudicating authority was dire c ted to fix a date for cross exami n ation of the witnesses referred to in paragraph 79 (B to H).

¶21

We are i n formed that an interim reply has alre a dy been filed by the petitioner.

¶22

Petitione r seeks a direction to the respondent t o permit further cross-examinati o n of witnesses. Learned counsel f o r the petitioner submits that r e fusal to grant an opportunity to cr o ss-examine the witnesses is pre j udicial to the petitioner.

¶23

Learned c ounsel for respondent submits that a ll the witnesses referred to in p aragraph 79 (B to H) were summon e d. Some of the witnesses faile d to appear despite repeated summons. He submits that the witnesses p r obably did not appear because they were supporting the petitioner. O ther witnesses who appeared (11 out o f 18) have been

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

W.P.(C) 855/2024

¶26

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:2 2.01.2024 16:11:38

¶27

cross-examined at length by the petitioner.

¶28

Learned c ounsel for the petitioner submits that t he Adjudicating Authority has n ow closed the right of further cross examination of other witnesse s and has required the petitioner to file written submissions wi t hin 10 days.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner apprehends tha t no personal hearing is likely to be extended to the petitioner. He s ubmits that he would be satisfied in case time is enlarged to fil e final written submissions and a pe r sonal hearing is given to the pet i tioner.

¶30

Learned c ounsel for the respondent, on instr u ctions, submits that Adjudicati n g Authority shall grant a personal hearing to the petitioner after t he response being filed by the petitioner.

¶31

In view o f the above, the petition is disposed of enlarging the time for the pet i tioner to file final written submissio n s, as directed by order of the adj u dicating authority dated 11.01.2024. R eply, if any, be filed within t w o weeks from today i.e. on or be f ore 02.02.2024. Thereafter, the adjudicating authority shall fix a d ate of personal hearing not bef o re one week of 02.02.2024.

¶32

It is clari f ied that in case no reply is filed by t he petitioner by 02.02.2024, a p ersonal hearing shall nonetheless be granted without any further opp o rtunity to the petitioner to file the rep l y.

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

W.P.(C) 855/2024

¶35

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:2 2.01.2024 16:11:38

¶36

It is furt h er clarified that this Court has neithe r considered nor commented on the merits of the contentions of the either party. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.

¶37

The petit i on is disposed of in the above terms.

¶38

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

¶39

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J January 19, 2024/ vp

¶40

W.P.(C) 855/2024

¶41

Page 4 of 4

¶42

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:2 2.01.2024 16:11:38

Sanjeev Maggu v. Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Complex-Exports, New Custom House, New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Maggu v. Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Complex-Exports, New Custom House, New Delhi

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

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs Dr. Rohini Pakhiddey

Subhojit Chatterjee Vs Union of India and Ors..

Shri Venkateshwar Constructions-Vdb Projectes (P) Ltd. (Jv) Vs Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Govt of India

Ms Shivansh Associates Vs Ms Roop Raj Banquet Restro Bar and Ors.

Chandra Shekhar Vs the State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Maj B S Maan Vs Union of India and Others

Sunil Kumar Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

All India Institute of Medical Sciences Vs Ms Veeena Gaba

Netsoft Consulting Services Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Trade and Taxes and Anr.

Oguljeren Hajyyeva Vs Commissioner of Customs

M/S Gold Plus Glass Industry Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Commissioner of Customs Acc Import New Delhi Vs M/S Kajariaceremics Ltd.

Hughes Network Systems India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import & General) New Delhi

Hughes Communication India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import & General) New Delhi