Customs confiscation requires notice and hearing before penalty can stand, even where a statutory appeal exists

A confiscation and penalty order under customs law was vulnerable where the affected party was not given the hearing contemplated by the show-cause notice and statutory procedure. The record did not show that a hearing date had been fixed before the order was passed, so the affected person was denied an opportunity to file a written statement and contest the proposed action. The existence of a statutory appeal did not prevent writ interference in the special facts, because the prior writ approach was bona fide and the absence of notice and hearing was itself sufficient to justify intervention. The matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh after notice and hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation and penalty order could be quashed for want of a proper opportunity to file a written statement and participate in the hearing before the customs authority, and whether the existence of a statutory appeal barred interference under writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The show-cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act required a written reply and indicated that the matter would be decided on the date fixed for hearing if no reply was filed. The record did not show that any date of hearing had been fixed before the confiscation order was passed. The appellant was therefore denied the opportunity to appear and contest the proposed action. The Court treated this denial as sufficient to interfere with the order, without examining the merits of confiscation or penalty. Although the order was appealable and writ jurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked, the special facts showed that the appellant had been pursuing a prior writ remedy bona fide and should not be prejudiced by the authority's failure to give a hearing.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty order was quashed for breach of the opportunity of hearing, and the challenge succeeded notwithstanding the availability of a statutory appeal.

Final Conclusion: The decision set aside the earlier writ dismissal, restored the appellant's opportunity to file a written statement, and directed the customs authority to decide the matter afresh after notice and hearing, while preserving resort to statutory remedies against any fresh order.

Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial confiscation order cannot be sustained when the person affected is denied the hearing contemplated by the show-cause notice and the statutory procedure, even if an appellate remedy exists.

---