DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) The petitioners assail an order-in-original dated January 17, 2017.
(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that, although the order-in-original is appealable, the impugned order suffers from breach of principles of natural justice. The petitioners were denied a right of cross-examination of the witnesses of the prosecution by the customs authorities. The request for cross-examination was turned down. He refers to paragraph 35.2 of the decision impugned where the request for cross-examination has been dealt with by the authority. He submits that, the authority had proceeded on the basis of five reported judgments and has held that the right of cross-examination is not a part of general principles of natural justice and that cross-examination may not be allowed whenever asked for. He submits that, the authority has misconstrued and misapplied the decision noted in the paragraph under reference. He refers to the decisions individually and submits that, the facts scenario obtaining in those decisions and in the present case are different and that the ratios laid down therein are not applicable.
(3.) Relying on 2015 (324) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) (Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Kolkata-II) he submits that the right of cross-examination of the witnesses produced by the prosecution is a necessity as an order based on such witness's evidence suffers from a serious flaw when the right of cross-examination is denied to the respondents.;