Sanjeev Maggu v. Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Complex

1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to permit cross-examination of witnesses.

2. Petitioner is engaged in the business of customs brokerage. A show cause notice dated 29.06.2022 was issued to the petitioner under IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT

NEW DELHI Date of decision 855/2024 & CM APPL. 3617/2024 and CM APPL. 3618/2024 SANJEEV MAGGU versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AIR CARGO COMPLEX EXPORTS, NEW CUSTOM HOUSE, NEW DELHI Advocates who appeared in this case: Mr. Akhil Krishan Maggu, Mr. Vikas Sareen, Ms. Maninder Kaur, Ms. Oshin Maggu and Mr. Sidhant Krishna Yadav, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Mishra, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Rahul Bansal, Mr. Parvesh Bansal, Mishra and Ms. Chetna Singhal, Advocates. HON’BLE MR.

JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA HON'BLE MR.

JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to permit examination of witnesses. Petitioner is engaged in the business of customs brokerage. A IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 19.01.2024 & CM APPL. 3617/2024 and CM APPL...... Petitioner COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AIR CARGO COMPLEX..... Respondent Mr. Akhil Krishan Maggu, Mr. Vikas Sareen, Ms. Maninder Kaur, Ms. Oshin Maggu and Mr. Sidhant Mr. Rajesh Mishra, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Rahul Bansal, Mr. Parvesh Bansal, Ms. Ankita R. Mishra and Ms. Chetna Singhal, Advocates.. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to permit Petitioner is engaged in the business of customs brokerage. A Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 [“the Act”].

3. Said show cause notice led to several round the present purposes, we may refer to an order dated 16.09.2022 passed in W.P. (C) 12333/2022, filed by the petitioner, wherein this Court directed respondent/revenue to furnish copies of all documents referred to in paragraph 79 of th their physical possession. They were also required to clearly indicate documents which were not available in their record. Upon supply of documents, petitioners were required to file a final reply within two weeks thereafter. The adjudicating authority was directed to fix a date for cross examination of the witnesses referred to in paragraph 79 (B to H).

4. We are informed that an interim reply has already been filed by the petitioner.

5. Petitioner seeks a direction cross-examination of witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that refusal to grant an opportunity to cross witnesses is prejudicial to the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for respondent submits that all the wi referred to in paragraph 79 (B to H) were summoned. witnesses failed to appear despite repeated summons. the witnesses probably did the petitioner. O Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 [“the Act”]. aid show cause notice led to several rounds of litigation. For referred to in paragraph 79 of the show cause notice, which were in ter. The adjudicating authority was directed to fix a date We are informed that an interim reply has already been filed by etitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to permit further examination of witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that refusal to grant an opportunity to cross witnesses is prejudicial to the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent submits that all the wi referred to in paragraph 79 (B to H) were summoned. witnesses failed to appear despite repeated summons. probably did not appear because they were supporting Other witnesses who appeared (11 out of 18 s of litigation. For e show cause notice, which were in ter. The adjudicating authority was directed to fix a date We are informed that an interim reply has already been filed by ondent to permit further examination of witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that refusal to grant an opportunity to cross-examine the Learned counsel for respondent submits that all the witnesses referred to in paragraph 79 (B to H) were summoned. Some of the witnesses failed to appear despite repeated summons. He submits that not appear because they were supporting out of 18) have been cross-examined at length by the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for t Authority has now closed the right of further cross examination of other witnesses and has required the petitioner to file submissions within 10 days.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner apprehends that no personal hearing is likely to be extended to the petitioner. He sub enlarged to file final written submissions and a personal hearing is given to the petitioner.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent, that Adjudicating A petitioner after t

10. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of enlarging the time for the petitioner to file final written submissions, as directed by order of the adjudicating authority dated 11.01.2024. Reply, if any, be filed within two weeks from today i.e. on or before 02.02.2024. Thereafter, the adjudicating authority shall fix a date of personal hearing not before one week of 02.02.2024.