Case Details: Rajesh Gadiya Versus Additional Commissioner of Customs (2025) 33 Centax 319 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Prathiba M. Singh & Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ.
- S/Shri Prem Ranjan Kumar & Ruchik Harkant, Advs., for the Petitioner
- Shri Harpreet Singh, SSC, for the Respondent
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, engaged in scrap trading, was alleged to have had an active role in smuggling consignments of foreign origin cigarettes and old photocopier machines imported in the guise of aluminium scrap. The record showed that the petitioner had introduced the importer-exporter code (IEC) holder to the supplier, enabled and facilitated import documentation and filing of bills of entry, and thereafter destroyed e-mails and mobile phones that would have revealed the exact role played. The IEC holder had admitted to lending his name as importer for the scheme at the instance of another individual. The adjudicating authority, relying mainly on admissions and documentary evidence, held that the parties had connived consciously and deliberately to devise a smuggling scheme to evade customs duty. A request for cross-examination of the Customs Broker’s G card holder and the IEC holder was rejected on the ground that no valid basis was given. Aggrieved by such rejection and the consequent order, the petitioner approached the High Court by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that denial of cross-examination in the facts of the case did not cause prejudice nor violate principles of natural justice. It noted that the destroyed e-mails and mobile phones would themselves have revealed the precise role of the petitioner, and that all parties were well acquainted with each other and had colluded to facilitate smuggling. The Court observed that the right to cross-examination is not absolute and that prejudice must be demonstrated to establish that substantial justice could not otherwise be done. On the facts, the adjudicating authority’s reliance on statements and documents was held to be justified. The Court declined to entertain the writ petition in view of the availability of a substantial statutory appellate remedy under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, but considering that the limitation period had expired, directed that appeals could be filed within one month without being dismissed on limitation grounds.
List of Case Cited
- Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Ltd. — 2021 (52) G.S.T.L. 385 (S.C.) — Distinguished [Paras 24, 27]
- J & K Cigarettes Ltd. v. Collector — 2009 (242) E.L.T. 189 (Del.) — Relied on [Paras 15, 19]
- Sushil Aggarwal v. Principal Commissioner — (2025) 30 Centax 482 (Del.) — Relied on [Para 20]
- Telestar Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. Special Director of Enforcement — 2013 (289) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 21]
- Vallabh Textiles v. Additional Commissioner — (2025) 30 Centax 522 (Del.) — Relied on [Para 23]
