24.Insofar the order of the Writ Court dated 26.04.2021 made in W.P.[MD]Nos.3917 & 3918 of 2020 is concerned, in paragraph 15 of the said judgment, the learned Judge also had expressed his view that the petitioners in that case are not innocents. The said finding also would squarely apply to all such noticees including these petitioners. Therefore, merely because of the non-production of the CCTV footage for which the custodian is Airport Authority of India with whom the Customs Department does not have any agreement or the Customs Department cannot be a custodian of the CCTV footage of the Airport Authority of India, it cannot be construed that the entire adjudication proceedings cannot be allowed to continue and that is the reason why while interjecting the order of the writ Court, the Division Bench has categorically stated that, the finding given by the learned Judge is unwarranted and therefore, the order has been stayed. Therefore, learned Standing Counsel would contend that, the plea raised by the petitioners that chance of cross examination was not given and the writ Court order, dated 26.04.2021 was in force and therefore these two reasons were mainly projected by the petitioners in favour of them to assail the impugned order, according to the respondents counsel, would not be of much use to them and therefore, on that ground they cannot interject the impugned orders successfully. Hence, the learned Standing Counsel would contend that, the impugned orders are very well sustained and if at all still the petitioners feel that they have any grievance over the impugned order, they can very well prefer appeal before the Appellate authority and without preferring any appeal they cannot, on these two grounds, or any other grounds urge before this Court to set aside the order and to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for re-adjudication. Hence, the learned Standing Counsel seek indulgence of this Court to dismiss these writ petitions.
