Reasonable opportunity of hearing under customs confiscation law does not always require cross-examination of relied-upon witnesses.

In confiscation proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962, the requirement of a "reasonable opportunity of being heard" under section 124(c) is flexible and depends on the statutory scheme and the nature of the inquiry. Sections 107 and 108 distinguish investigative statements from formal adjudication, so the hearing under section 124(c) does not necessarily require a court-like trial with compulsory cross-examination of every person whose statement is relied on. Where the affected party receives copies of the statements, is informed of the material against it, and is given an oral hearing, the statutory requirement is ordinarily met. On the facts described, no denial of a real opportunity to meet the case was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in confiscation proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962, the expression "reasonable opportunity of being heard" in section 124(c) includes a right to cross-examine persons whose statements are relied on by the department but who were not summoned as departmental witnesses.

Analysis: Sections 107 and 108 distinguish between investigation and formal inquiry, and section 124 incorporates the requirements of notice, representation, and hearing in confiscation proceedings. The requirement of natural justice is flexible and depends on the nature of the inquiry and the statutory scheme. A hearing under section 124(c) does not invariably mean a court-like trial with compulsory examination and cross-examination of every person whose statement is relied upon. Where copies of the statements are furnished, the party is given an opportunity to answer them, and an oral hearing is afforded, the statutory requirement is ordinarily satisfied. On the facts, the petitioner was supplied with the material, was called for hearing, and was not shown to have been denied a real opportunity to meet the case against him or to seek cross-examination.

Conclusion: The expression "reasonable opportunity of being heard" in section 124(c) does not, in the circumstances of this case, confer an absolute right to cross-examine the persons whose statements were relied on, and there was no violation of natural justice.

---