Natural justice in confiscation proceedings requires notice and hearing to an ownership claimant; otherwise the order cannot stand.

Confiscation of seized goods could not be sustained where the claimant asserting ownership was kept out of the adjudication, was not served the show cause notice, and was denied a hearing. The absence of notice and participation violated natural justice and deprived the claimant of an opportunity to explain its claim to the goods, so the confiscation order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication. The claimant was also treated as a person aggrieved because the confiscation directly affected its asserted legal interest in the consignment, giving it locus standi to challenge the order.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the confiscation order could be sustained when the claimant of the goods was kept out of the adjudication proceedings and was not furnished the show cause notice; (ii) whether the appellant had locus standi as a person aggrieved to challenge the confiscation.

Issue (i): whether the confiscation order could be sustained when the claimant of the goods was kept out of the adjudication proceedings and was not furnished the show cause notice.

Analysis: The claimant had made repeated efforts to contact the customs authorities, sought information about the proceedings, and asserted ownership over the consignment. The record showed that the goods had been seized and the confiscation was ordered without affording the claimant a hearing. The denial of participation in the adjudication deprived the claimant of an opportunity to explain its position and establish its claim to the goods.

Conclusion: The confiscation order could not be sustained and had to be set aside for violation of natural justice.

Issue (ii): whether the appellant had locus standi as a person aggrieved to challenge the confiscation.

Analysis: The appellant consistently asserted ownership of the consignment and took steps to secure release or re-shipment of the goods. An order of confiscation passed behind its back in respect of goods claimed by it directly affected its legal interest. The appellant's claim required adjudication on notice and after hearing.

Conclusion: The appellant was a person aggrieved and had locus standi to maintain the appeal.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication after supplying the show cause notice and hearing the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: An order of confiscation passed without notice and hearing to a claimant asserting ownership over the seized goods violates natural justice and is liable to be set aside with remand for fresh adjudication; such claimant is a person aggrieved entitled to challenge the order.

---