Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the order in original dated September 6, 2018 passed by the adjudicating authority exercising jurisdiction under the provision of the Customs Act, 1962 in the present writ petition.
(2.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner assails the order in original, even though there exists a statutory alternative remedy with regard thereto, on the ground that the order in original stands vitiated by the breach of principles of natural justice.
(3.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner wa s served with a show cause notice dated February 13, 2017. The petitioner had replied to such show cause notice. In the reply, the petitioner had requested for crossexamination of the witness of the prosecution. He has referred to the impugned order in original and submitted that, although, the adjudicating authority has noted that, the petitioner wanted to crossexamine the prosecution witnesses, the adjudicating authority disallowed the same on the ground that, the evidence in adjudication proceedings need not be like the one in criminal cases. Moreover, according to the adjudicating authority, the circumstantial evidences corroborated the statements made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The persons making the statements under Section 108 of the Act of 1962 made the same voluntarily and did not retract from the statements. Such witnesses were conversant with the facts of the case and the role of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner did not make out any specific reason or point for seeking cross-examination. Therefore, the request for cross-examination was denied. He has submitted that, an adjudicating authority cannot deny the right of cross-examination to a noticee in a proceedings under the Act of 1962. He has referred to Section 138B of the Act of 1962 and has submitted that, a statement of a witness will become relevant without cross-examination, only if, the grounds stipulated in subSection (1) thereof stands fulfilled. In the present case, such grounds have not been fulfilled. There is no finding by the adjudicating authority that, any of the grounds enumerated in sub-Section (1) of Section 138B of the Act of 1962 exists. Therefore, the decision of the adjudicating authority, in not allowing cross-examination of the witnesses, is wrong. The impugned order therefore stands vitiated by breach of principles of natural justice.;