Natural justice and certiorari: undisclosed customs evidence can vitiate confiscation despite an available statutory appeal.

The existence of a statutory appeal does not bar the High Court from issuing certiorari where the customs authority acts without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or in breach of natural justice. In this customs matter, the proceedings were invalid because the confiscation and penalty were based on material that was not properly disclosed, the relevant statement was not adequately supplied, and no fair opportunity was given to test the adverse evidence or explain the transport records and package markings. The High Court could therefore entertain the writ petition, and the setting aside of the confiscation and penalty was sustained, with liberty to hold a fresh enquiry according to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the existence of a statutory appeal barred the High Court from entertaining a writ of certiorari against the customs order. (ii) Whether the customs enquiry and confiscation order were vitiated for breach of the rules of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether the existence of a statutory appeal barred the High Court from entertaining a writ of certiorari against the customs order.

Analysis: The availability of an appeal under the customs law does not, by itself, take away the power of the High Court to issue certiorari. The rule requiring exhaustion of alternative remedies is one of convenience, not a rule of law, and it yields where the inferior authority acts without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or in violation of natural justice.

Conclusion: The High Court could entertain the writ petition notwithstanding the statutory remedy of appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the customs enquiry and confiscation order were vitiated for breach of the rules of natural justice.

Analysis: The confiscation and penalty were founded on material that had not been properly disclosed and on inferences drawn from statements and records without giving the affected persons a fair opportunity to meet them. The relevant statement from the trading firm was not adequately supplied, the maker of the statement was not produced for examination despite request, and no meaningful opportunity was given to test the adverse material or explain the alleged transport records and markings on the packages. A quasi-judicial authority must disclose the material relied upon and afford a fair chance to meet it before acting on it.

Conclusion: The customs proceedings were invalid because they offended the rules of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, and the High Court's setting aside of the confiscation and penalty was sustained, while leaving liberty to the authorities to hold a fresh enquiry according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial order based on undisclosed material or adverse inferences drawn without giving the affected party a fair opportunity to meet them is vitiated for breach of natural justice, and the existence of an appellate remedy does not bar certiorari in such a case.

---