Allowed

Mahendra Kumar Thakker v. Principal Commissioner of Customs & Anr.

Delhi HC9 Jul 2024W.P.(C)/9255/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows the writ petition against a customs adjudication order rejecting a request for cross-examination. The Court held that the Adjudicating Authority failed to examine the petition or record reasons for rejection. The order quashed the impugned rejection and directed the Authority to re-examine the application with notice to the petitioner before the merits hearing.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order dated 03 May 2024 rejecting the prayer for cross-examination; direction to the Adjudicating Authority to examine the letter dated 23 May 2024 afresh with due notice to the petiti

Mahendra Kumar Thakker Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs… — Customs and Excise | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~114

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9255/2024

¶4

MAHENDRA KUMAR THAKKER .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Deepak Gandhi, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

¶8

& ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Antil, Mr. Amit Kumar, Ms. Amrita Bhadauria and Ms. Gayatri, Advocates.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶10

O R D E R % 09.07.2024 CM APPL. 37919/2024 (Ex.)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

This application stands disposed of.

¶13

W.P.(C) 9255/2024 & CM APPL. 37918/2024 (stay)

¶14

This writ petition has been preferred principally assailing the order dated 05 June 2024 in terms of which the application of the petitioner conveying a request for cross-examination as embodied in his letter dated 23 May 2024, has come to be rejected. As we read the order impugned, we find that the Adjudicating Authority has, while dealing with the aforesaid request, observed as follows:-

¶15

“ 1. Please refer to your letter dated 23.05.2024 wherein request was made to cross-examine certain persons as detailed in the letter. ln this regard, it is informed that the Adjudicating Authority

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 01:20:16

¶17

has denied the request of cross examination. Further, the Adjudicating Authority, Ms. H.K. Prasad, Commissioner, Customs Preventive, New Delhi has fixed Personal Hearing in your case on 04.07.2024 at 11:30 AM. ”

¶18

Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has taken us through the record and drawn our attention not just to the letter on 23 May 2024 but also the panchnamas to contend that the factum of the article which was recovered being gold was itself seriously disputed by the writ petitioner. He submitted that while the original panchnama had referred to the sealed article as yellow metal, the second panchnama which came to be drawn without any notice to the writ petitioner referred to the seized article as gold. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that Mr. Gandhi submitted that there was an imperative need for the writ petitioner being afforded the opportunity to cross examine the persons whose names have been detailed in the letter dated 23 May 2024.

¶19

On hearing Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel who appears for the respondents and on going through the record, we find at this stage that the Adjudicating Authority has failed to examine the letter dated 23 May 2024 in its correct perspective. There is also an evident failure to record and assign any reasons for rejection of the request for cross examination that was made. The impugned order, in our considered opinion, therefore, is liable to be quashed and set aside on this short ground alone.

¶20

We consequently allow the instant writ petition and quash the order dated 03 May 2024 insofar as it rejects the prayer for cross examination. We direct the Adjudicating Authority to examine the letter dated 23 May 2024 afresh and in accordance with law.

¶21

The Adjudicating Authority shall proceed in the matter with due

¶22

¶23

notice to the writ petitioner. It shall also ensure that the aforesaid application is disposed of before commencement of hearing on merits subject to the petitioner not seeking any unnecessary adjournments and cooperating in the disposal of the said application. 6. All rights and contentions of parties in respect of merits are kept open.

¶24

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

¶25

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

¶26

JULY 9, 2024/ vp

¶27

Mahendra Kumar Thakker v. Principal Commissioner of Customs & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Kumar Thakker v. Principal Commissioner of Customs & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Yunus Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

M/S Sai Fertilizers Private Limited and Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

United Poly Engineering Private Limited Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Polc v & Anr.

Fasal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Lokesh Kumar Vs the Chairman, S.T.F./S.D.M., Alipur

Kannu Singh Harit Vs Gnct. of Delhi & Ors.

Vineet Sehgal Vs Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors.

Somaya Gupta Vs the Chief Proctor Jnu & Ors.

Shilpa Kapil Dalmia Vs the Income Tax Officer, WARD-28(1) & Anr.

Shilpa Kapil Dalmia Vs the Income Tax Officer, WARD-28(1) & Anr.

Manoj Kumar Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vikram Garg Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 19 1 Delhi and Anr.

Sukhdeep Singh Chadha Vs Acit, Circle International Taxation - 1(2)(1), Delhi

Picheswar Gadde Vs National Faceless Appeal Centre Income Tax Department & Ors.