DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) An order in original dated March 28, 2018 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
(2.) Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that, the impugned order stands vitiated by reasons of violation of principles of natural justice. He submits that, in course of the adjudication process, the last date of hearing was January 9, 2018 when few persons were cross-examined. The next date for cross-examination was fixed on February 2, 2018. His clients had written a letter dated January 30, 2018 stating that, the petitioners were giving up the right of cross-examination. The petitioners wanted another date for the purpose of making their submissions in the matter. The petitioners also informed the authorities as to the dates of hearing which would be inconvenient for the petitioner so that a convenient date made may be fixed for hearing. He submits that, the petitioners have since been served with the impugned order without any decision being taken with regard to the request for a personal hearing contained in the writing dated January 30, 2018. He refers to section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 and submits that, the statute makes it obligatory on the part of the adjudicating authority to hear the petitioners, at least give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In the present case, the adjudicating authority did not do so. He seeks quashing of the impugned order.
(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.2 submits that, the procedure for adjudication is laid down under Section 122A of the Act of 1962. The adjudicating authority has the discretion to either grant or refuse an adjournment. In the present case, on several occasions, the matter was adjourned. The adjudicating authority thought it fit and prudent not to grant any further adjournment and had proceeded to dispose of the matter on merits. There is no infirmity in the impugned order.;