Cross-Examination is Not an Absolute Right and is Subject to Circumstances of Each Case: High Court:

The court highlighted that the opportunity for cross-examination depends on the facts and situation of the case and the present case involved fraudulent availment of drawbacks using fake firms.
Delhi High Court Refuses to Interefe in Case Involving Fraudulent Activities

Cross-Examination is Not an Absolute Right and is Subject to Circumstances of Each Case: High Court
The Delhi High Court recently upheld an order denying the petitioner's request for cross-examination of witnesses in a case involving alleged fraudulent activities.
The Customs Department had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, Ramesh Wadhera, accusing him and his son of fraudulently claiming drawbacks by exporting readymade garments. The petitioner allegedly exported substandard-quality goods through several fake firms by overvaluing them so that he could claim a drawback. The Investigations done by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) revealed that these firms never existed.
The petitioner in 2017 requested the opportunity to cross-examine DRI officials and the co-noticees, to whom notices were issued. However, the same was rejected several times by the Customs Department. In 2019, the petitioner again requested the cross-examination of DRI officers involved in the case, but the request was denied again.
The High Court observed that the noticees did not appear for a personal hearing, and many notices came back as the firms did not exist. The court highlighted that the petitioner's request for the cross-examination seemed like an attempt to delay the proceedings.
The court said that the DRI officials cannot be cross-examined without giving a valid reason by the petitioner. Citing a previous ruling, the High Court held that the right to examination is not an unfettered and absolute right, and it requires a specific reason as to why the cross-examination is needed. Further, the court highlighted that the opportunity for cross-examination depends on the facts and situation of the case and the present case involved fraudulent availment of drawbacks using fake firms.
Therefore, the court refused to interfere with the DRI's order. The petitioner was allowed to reply to the show cause notice before January 20, 2026.
About Author

Nidhi
Content Writer
Nidhi is a skilled content writer specializing in personal finance. She creates clear, engaging articles on mutual funds, investments, insurance, and wealth-building strategies. With a passion for simplifying complex financial topics, Nidhi helps readers make informed money decisions with confidence. She can be reached at [email protected]
Nidhi is a skilled content writer specializing in personal finance. She creates clear, engaging articles on mutual funds, investments, insurance, and wealth-building strategies. With a passion for simplifying complex financial topics, Nidhi helps readers make informed money decisions with confidence. She can be reached at [email protected]
Studycafe
New Delhi, Delhi, India
1832My Recent Articles
- Karnataka High Court Gives Another Chance in GST Matter Due to Lack of Hearing
- Delay Should Be Condoned if Explanation is Unrefuted: ITAT
- Non-Service of Income Tax Notice, Ill health of taxpayer, ITAT condones Appeal filing delay
- Books of Accounts Cannot be Rejected Without Any Specific Defect: ITAT Kolkata
- Karnataka High Court Sends ITC Matter Back to GST Authorities for Reconsideration
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








