Procedural fairness in confiscation matters requires prior notice of the exact charge and relied-upon RBI instruction before adjudication.

Confiscation, fine and penalty were found unsustainable where the importer was not informed of the exact charge or the specific RBI instruction said to have been breached. The adjudication order also failed to clearly identify the governing regulatory basis, and the relied-upon instruction was not cited in the order or supplied before decision. This was treated as a breach of procedural fairness because the importer had no adequate opportunity to meet the case against it. The confiscation order was set aside and the matter was remanded for communication of the precise charge and relevant RBI regulations or instructions, followed by fresh adjudication after a proper hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation order, fine and penalty could be sustained when the exact charge and the relied-upon RBI instruction were not communicated to the importer before adjudication.

Analysis: The impugned order proceeded without prior communication of the specific allegation or the precise RBI instruction said to have been violated. The adjudication also did not identify the governing regulatory basis with clarity, and the relied-upon instruction was neither cited in the order nor made available to the importer before decision. In such circumstances, the order was passed in breach of procedural fairness and without adequate opportunity to meet the case against the importer.

Conclusion: The confiscation order could not be sustained and was set aside. The matter was remanded for communication of the exact charge and the relied-upon RBI regulations or instructions, followed by fresh adjudication after giving a proper hearing.

---