Quasi-judicial customs adjudication requires natural justice; withheld evidence and unfair findings cannot be protected by statutory bar clauses.

When customs officers are required to adjudge confiscation, enhanced duty or penalty, the function is judicial or at least quasi-judicial and must be exercised with observance of natural justice. The text explains that withholding the material relied on, including chemical reports, denied the assessee a fair opportunity to meet the charge of misdeclaration, and the resulting adjudication was treated as mala fide. It further states that a statutory protection clause did not shield such an unfair exercise of power, and the availability of appeal or revision did not bar certiorari where there was a grave breach of natural justice. The customs orders and demands were therefore quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the customs authorities, while adjudging confiscation, enhanced duty and penalty for misdeclaration, acted in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity; (ii) whether the proceedings were vitiated for breach of natural justice and mala fides; (iii) whether Section 198 of the Sea Customs Act barred the writ proceedings or the availability of alternative remedies prevented certiorari.

Issue (i): Whether the customs authorities, while adjudging confiscation, enhanced duty and penalty for misdeclaration, acted in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity.

Analysis: The scheme of the Sea Customs Act required officers to "adjudge" confiscation, increased duty and penalty. The Act also provided appeal and revision against such orders and separately dealt with trial of offences by magistrates. These features showed that the customs officer was not performing a mere ministerial act but was required to apply a judicial approach while determining liability and imposing consequences.

Conclusion: The customs authorities acted in a judicial or at least quasi-judicial capacity.

Issue (ii): Whether the proceedings were vitiated for breach of natural justice and mala fides.

Analysis: The material on which the authorities relied, including the chemical reports, was withheld from the assessee despite repeated requests. The assessee was not given a fair opportunity to answer the charge of misdeclaration or to meet the evidence used against it. The record also showed that the departmental experts' opinion supported the assessee's classification, while the contrary view was reached by disregarding the relevant tariff standard and by relying on extraneous government specifications. The finding was therefore not a bona fide adjudication on the evidence.

Conclusion: The proceedings were vitiated by denial of natural justice and were mala fide.

Issue (iii): Whether Section 198 of the Sea Customs Act barred the writ proceedings or the availability of alternative remedies prevented certiorari.

Analysis: Section 198 could not protect an act which was not a bona fide act done in pursuance of the Act. In any event, the existence of an appeal and revision under the Sea Customs Act did not create an absolute bar to certiorari where a grave breach of natural justice had occurred. The constitutional power to issue writs could not be curtailed by such a statutory provision in the circumstances of this case.

Conclusion: Section 198 did not bar the proceedings and the alternative remedies did not prevent the grant of certiorari.

Final Conclusion: The customs orders and demands were rightly quashed, and the appeal failed because the adjudication was conducted without fair hearing and without lawful exercise of power.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute requires customs officers to adjudge confiscation, duty or penalty, the power is quasi-judicial and must be exercised with full observance of natural justice; a mala fide or unfair adjudication cannot be shielded by a statutory protection clause or by the existence of alternative remedies.

---