Calcutta High Court
M/S. Sadguru Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs The Commissioner Of Customs (Port) ... on 22 September, 2017
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
ORDER SHEET
WP No. 576 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
M/s. SADGURU FORWARDERS PVT. LTD. & ANR.
VERSUS
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) KOLKATA & ANR.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
Date : 22nd September, 2017.
Appearance:
Mr. Arijit Chakraborti, Adv.
Mr. K.K. Maiti, Adv.
Mr. T. Bhanja, Adv.
Mr. Nilotpal Chowdhury, Adv.
For the petitioners.
Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Amitabrata Roy, Adv.
For the respondents.
The Court :- The learned Advocate for the petitioners seeks a right of cross-examination of the witnesses produced by the Department. Learned Advocate for the petitioners refers to the correspondence exchanged. He submits that, although the learned Advocate for the petitioner was present on the three dates, such cross-examination could not take place in view of the absence of the Commissioner. He submits that, on a subsequent date since there was prior engagement of the learned Advocate, an intimation was given to the Commissioner as to the absence of the learned Advocate and request was made for re-schedulement. The same was done. However, the impugned writing dated August 31, 2017, the petitioners have been informed that since the petitioners 2 did not attend the previous date fixed for cross-examination, no further cross- examination will be allowed.
The Department is represented.
Learned Advocate for the Department submits that, the petitioners were not present on the last date fixed for cross-examination.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.
It appears that, a request was made to the Commissioner for re- schedulement of the date fixed for cross-examination due to the inconvenience of the learned Advocate. In the facts of the present case, it would be prudent to set aside the communication dated August 31, 2017 and the decision not to allow the further cross-examination of the witnesses of the Department. The Commissioner is requested to fix a date which is convenient for the parties to allow the cross-examination of the witnesses of the Department. It is clarified that, the Commissioner is at liberty to proceed with the proceedings in accordance with law.
WP No. 576 of 2017 is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) snn.