Customs adjudication review refused where independent corroborative material supported findings and jurisdiction was validly conferred by notification.

Review was refused in customs adjudication because the challenged findings were supported by independent corroborative material, including mobile call data and surrounding circumstances, and were not based solely on one co-accused's confessional statement. The objection that the adjudicating officer lacked jurisdiction was rejected because the officer was validly vested with authority by notification and case assignment, and any preamble error was treated as typographical. The complaint about absence of a Section 65B certificate was also rejected, as strict criminal evidence rules do not apply in the same manner to customs adjudication and the issue was outside the proper scope of review.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the review applicants could obtain review on the ground that they were not named in the confessional statement of one co-accused, despite other corroborative material; (ii) whether the adjudicating officer lacked jurisdiction to pass the original order; (iii) whether absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 vitiated the reliance on records in the adjudication proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the review applicants could obtain review on the ground that they were not named in the confessional statement of one co-accused, despite other corroborative material.

Analysis: The challenge based only on omission of names in the confessional statement was not accepted as a ground for review because the findings in the earlier judgment were supported by independent material. The record included extensive mobile call data and other surrounding circumstances linking the applicants with the smuggling network. The applicants did not offer any satisfactory explanation for the repeated contacts, and the earlier conclusion was not founded solely on the confessional statement.

Conclusion: The ground was rejected and did not justify review.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjudicating officer lacked jurisdiction to pass the original order.

Analysis: The notification appointing Commissioners of Central Excise (Adjudication) as Commissioners of Customs (Adjudication) for cases assigned by the Central Board of Excise and Customs was relied upon, along with the Board's order transferring the relevant file to the concerned adjudicating office. On that basis, the officer was held to have been duly vested with authority to adjudicate the show cause notice. The objection based on nomenclature in the preamble was treated as a typographical error and not as a jurisdictional defect.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 vitiated the reliance on records in the adjudication proceedings.

Analysis: The reliance on Section 65B was held misplaced in the context of customs adjudication proceedings, where strict rules of evidence do not apply in the same manner as in a criminal trial. The objection was also treated as beyond the permissible scope of review.

Conclusion: The objection based on Section 65B was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The review petitions failed on all grounds because the earlier decision was supported by independent evidence, the adjudicating authority had jurisdiction, and the evidentiary objection did not warrant interference in review.

Ratio Decidendi: In customs adjudication, review will not be granted where the impugned findings are supported by independent corroborative material beyond a disputed statement, and jurisdictional authority conferred by notification and assignment of case files is sufficient to sustain adjudication.

---