Natural justice in customs penalty matters requires prejudice from non-supply of statements; concurrent findings based on probability were sustained.

In customs adjudication, alleged breach of natural justice from non-furnishing of relied-upon statements was not established where the notice referred to the material, no timely request for copies was shown, and no prejudice was demonstrated. The personal penalty was sustained on merits because the finding rested on recovery of contraband, corroborative statements, a retracted statement implicating the person concerned, the hut owner's explanation, and an admission of prior smuggling involvement. The HC noted that customs proceedings are decided on preponderance of probability, not strict rules of evidence, and that concurrent factual findings will not be disturbed in writ jurisdiction absent perversity or legal error.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned penalty order was vitiated for violation of natural justice on the ground that copies of statements relied upon by the authorities were not furnished to the petitioner; (ii) Whether the findings sustaining the personal penalty under the Customs Act were liable to be interfered with on merits.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned penalty order was vitiated for violation of natural justice on the ground that copies of statements relied upon by the authorities were not furnished to the petitioner.

Analysis: The petitioner had been issued a show cause notice referring to the statements, but no contemporaneous demand for copies was shown to have been made at the adjudication or appellate stage. The Court found no material to show prejudice, and held that the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to defend the case and raise objections. The plea based on non-furnishing of statements was therefore not accepted.

Conclusion: The alleged violation of natural justice was not established.

Issue (ii): Whether the findings sustaining the personal penalty under the Customs Act were liable to be interfered with on merits.

Analysis: The Court relied on the recovery of contraband from the hut, the retracted statement implicating the petitioner, corroborative statements, the explanation of the owner of the hut, and the petitioner's own admission of prior involvement in smuggling activities. It was held that adjudication in customs matters proceeds on preponderance of probability and not strict rules of evidence. No ground was made out to disturb the concurrent factual findings, including the reduced penalty imposed in appeal.

Conclusion: The penalty order was upheld and no interference was warranted on merits.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the penalty failed, and the writ petition was dismissed after sustaining the departmental findings and the reduced personal penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: In customs adjudication, where the affected party is given notice of the relied-upon material and no prejudice is shown from the alleged non-supply of statements, the order is not vitiated for breach of natural justice; concurrent findings based on preponderance of probability will not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction absent perversity or legal error.

---