Natural justice in customs adjudication is breached when an authority relies on ex parte observations from a personal visit.

A quasi-judicial adjudication under the Customs Act is vitiated where the deciding authority makes a personal visit to the affected premises during pending proceedings, then relies on observations or answers allegedly obtained there without prior notice and opportunity to respond. Such conduct is inconsistent with an open mind, judicial objectivity, and the requirements of natural justice. The defect is fundamental and cannot be cured by a later corrigendum where the impugned visit and resulting material remain the basis for confiscation or penalty. The decision emphasizes that adjudication must rest only on material properly brought on record in the presence of the affected party.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudication order under the Customs Act was vitiated because the adjudicating authority made a personal visit to the appellant's premises during the pendency of adjudication, relied on what he allegedly saw and elicited there, and thereby acted with bias in breach of natural justice.

Analysis: An adjudicating authority exercising quasi-judicial powers must keep an open mind and decide only on material brought on record after affording notice and opportunity to meet it. A personal visit to the appellant's premises during pending adjudication, followed by reliance on observations or answers allegedly obtained in that visit, was held to be inconsistent with judicial objectivity and to offend the principles of natural justice. The order was therefore found to be legally infirm. In view of that defect, the authority's attempt to support confiscation and penalty on the basis of the impugned visit and ensuing observations could not stand. The corrigendum aspects did not cure the fundamental vice in the adjudication.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was vitiated by bias and breach of natural justice and could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial adjudication is invalid if the deciding authority introduces personal observations or ex parte material gathered during the pendency of proceedings without notice to the affected party, as this destroys the appearance and reality of impartial decision-making.

---