Mango Tree Traders Vs Commissioner of Customs(Audit) (Madras High Court)
Case Background
Mango Tree Traders challenged an order dated January 23, 2024, before the Madras High Court. This order had rejected the declared description of their goods as “unflavoured supari (betel nut product); APL supari (boiled betel nut product)” and reclassified them as “areca nuts split.” Consequently, the customs duty and penalty were revised based on the new classification.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner, Mango Tree Traders, argued that the order violated principles of natural justice by denying their request for cross-examination of key officials involved in the assessment. Their counsel relied heavily on precedents set by the Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata – II and the Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & S. T., Siliguri v. Subodh Das. They highlighted that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) report supported their classification, but contradictory conclusions were drawn based on other reports.
Respondent’s Position
The learned senior standing counsel for the respondents, Rajendran Raghavan, accepted notice for the respondents. They contended that the right to cross-examination is not absolute and depends on the specifics of each case. They argued that all relevant documentary evidence had been provided to the petitioner, fulfilling the requirements of natural justice.
