Natural justice requires a fair chance to challenge final expert opinion before confiscation based on civil consequences.

Even where a statute treats an expert opinion as final, that opinion cannot be the sole basis of an adverse customs adjudication carrying civil consequences unless the affected party is given a fair opportunity to meet and challenge it. Where the confiscation rested wholly on the Director General's view that the goods were antiquities, and no prior hearing or post-decisional review was provided, fairness required a pre-decisional hearing and, where necessary, cross-examination of the expert. Denial of that opportunity caused serious prejudice and violated natural justice, so the confiscation could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether denial of an opportunity to cross-examine the Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India, whose opinion was treated as final under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, vitiated the customs adjudication.

Analysis: The confiscation order rested wholly on the Director General's opinion that certain ivory articles were antiquities. The statutory provision making that opinion final did not expressly exclude a hearing, nor did it provide any post-decisional review. The opinion had immediate civil consequences, since it directly led to confiscation of the goods. In such a situation, where the affected party had no prior opportunity to meet the material relied upon and the opinion was the sole basis of the adverse decision, fairness required a pre-decisional hearing and an opportunity to test the opinion by cross-examination. The denial of that opportunity caused serious prejudice.

Conclusion: The refusal to permit cross-examination was unlawful and amounted to a violation of natural justice. The confiscation order could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the adjudication order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Even where a statute declares an expert opinion final, the opinion cannot be used as the sole basis of an adverse adjudication involving civil consequences unless the affected person is afforded a fair opportunity to meet and challenge that opinion, including cross-examination where necessary, unless such procedure is clearly excluded by the statute.

---