Natural justice in customs adjudication turns on fair hearing, but cross-examination requests cannot be ignored.

Repeated opportunities to reply can defeat a natural justice objection where the importer files no response and the record is supported by uncontroverted witness statements and documents showing unauthorised import without the requisite licence; confiscation and penalty are then sustainable. Where a later customs adjudication substantially relies on recorded statements, the authority must deal with a specific request for cross-examination by a reasoned order; failure to do so renders the order unsustainable and justifies remand for fresh adjudication in accordance with fair hearing requirements.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the first adjudication suffered from violation of natural justice and whether the confiscation and penalty for unauthorised importation were sustainable. (ii) Whether the second adjudication had to be remanded for failure to consider the request for cross-examination of witnesses.

Issue (i): Whether the first adjudication suffered from violation of natural justice and whether the confiscation and penalty for unauthorised importation were sustainable.

Analysis: The appellant was granted several adjournments before the first adjudication and did not file a reply to the show-cause notice or offer any effective response when heard. The request for further time was refused only after repeated opportunities had already been given. The allegations in the notice were supported by uncontroverted witness statements and documentary material showing that the import was not by an actual user and was effected without the necessary licence. In such circumstances, the objection based on denial of natural justice did not survive, and the finding that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) and that penalty was attracted under Section 112 stood supported.

Conclusion: The plea of violation of natural justice was rejected and the confiscation and penalty were upheld against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the second adjudication had to be remanded for failure to consider the request for cross-examination of witnesses.

Analysis: The second adjudication was founded on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, and the appellant had specifically sought cross-examination of the persons whose statements were relied upon. That request was noted but not dealt with by a reasoned order. Where the adjudication substantially turns on such statements, the authority must apply its mind to the request and then proceed in accordance with the requirements of fair hearing. Since that exercise was not undertaken, the order could not be sustained as it stood.

Conclusion: The impugned order in the second appeal was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and natural justice.

Final Conclusion: One appeal failed on merits and on the plea of denial of hearing, while the other was reopened for fresh adjudication because the request for cross-examination had not been properly considered.

---