Case Details: Samuvel Chandran Versus Commissioner of Customs (2025) 31 Centax 24 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Sanjay Kumar, CJ., & K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
- S/Shri Shilp Vinod, Gokulakrisnan, Ms Rukmini S., Advs. & Ms Shobha Ramamoorthy, AOR, for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an adjudication order on the ground that the principles of natural justice had been violated due to the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements formed the basis of the show cause notice. It was contended that such denial rendered the entire proceedings void and necessitated judicial intervention through writ jurisdiction, rather than relegating the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy before the Commissioner (Appeals).
The Bombay High Court, in the impugned order, noted that the adjudicating authority had issued prior notice and afforded the petitioner an opportunity to present a defence, and that specific reasons were recorded for denying cross-examination of some witnesses. It further observed that these reasons could be examined in the appellate forum already approached by the petitioner and that there was no exceptional ground to bypass the established doctrine of alternate remedy. The writ petition was therefore dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy on merits.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the impugned order of the High Court did not warrant interference. It observed that the adjudication proceedings were not conducted in breach of fundamental procedural safeguards, as notice and opportunity to respond were duly granted, and the reasons for non-grant of cross-examination were available for judicial scrutiny before the appellate authority. After condoning the delay, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Samuvel Chandran v. Commissioner — (2025) 31 Centax 23 (Bom.) — Affirmed [Para 2]
