Kerala High Court Overturns Confiscation Order for Imported Product Classification Dispute

The Kerala High Court set aside a confiscation order in a case involving the disputed classification of an imported product under the HS code. The court found a violation of natural justice principles due to lack of proper hearing before confiscation. Emphasizing procedural safeguards under the Customs Act, the court directed Customs authorities to provide a hearing opportunity to the petitioner. While declining to order a lab report, the court stressed the importance of due process and fair hearings in customs matters, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles in administrative actions.

---

---

Issues: Classification of imported product under HS code, Violation of principles of natural justice, Adjudication on disputed questions of fact, Procedural safeguards under Customs Act

The judgment by the Kerala High Court involved a case where a private limited company imported Acyclic Hydrocarbon Unsaturated Squalene 80% under an Advance Authorisation. The Customs authorities later disputed the classification of the product under HS code 15042090 instead of the declared classification of 29012990 based on test reports. The petitioner contended that they were not given a proper hearing before the cargo was confiscated. The court entertained the writ petition due to alleged violation of natural justice but clarified that it would not adjudicate on disputed facts. The petitioner's plea of lack of opportunity for a hearing was acknowledged, leading to the setting aside of the confiscation order.

The court emphasized that while the petitioner's representative was present during proceedings, it did not fulfill the procedural safeguards required under the Customs Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of following due process and providing an opportunity for the petitioner to show cause before passing confiscation orders. The court disposed of the writ petition, directing the Customs authorities to issue a notice to the petitioner within a week for a proper hearing and consideration of their reply within the following week.

Regarding the request for a lab report on the percentage of Squalene, the court declined to direct the authorities but suggested that the petitioner could represent the need for the report to the second respondent for consideration. The judgment concluded by emphasizing the importance of following procedural safeguards and ensuring a fair hearing for parties involved in customs matters, ultimately upholding the principles of natural justice in administrative actions.

---