Defective adjudication order and lack of fair hearing led to remand for fresh customs consideration.

An adjudication order was treated as vitiated where the authority named in the body of the order differed from the authority shown as having signed it, and the record did not contain the corrigendum relied upon by the Revenue. The challenge also raised concerns about the voluntariness of a statement and the absence of corroborative material to establish abetment. In these circumstances, the matter was remanded to the competent customs authority for de novo consideration, with a full opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudication order, being signed by one authority while purporting to be passed by another, was vitiated and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration in view of the alleged violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The order disclosed a patent defect as the authority named in the body of the order differed from the authority shown as having signed it. The record also did not contain the purported corrigendum relied upon by the Revenue. In addition, the appellant raised a challenge to the voluntariness of the statement and asserted absence of corroborative material to establish abetment. In these circumstances, the matter required fresh adjudication with proper opportunity to the appellant to meet the case against him.

Conclusion: The adjudication was treated as vitiated and the matter was remanded to the competent customs authority for de novo consideration after granting the appellant a full opportunity of hearing.

---