Natural justice and attempted export: undisclosed adverse material cannot sustain confiscation findings or an adjudication order.

An addendum to a show cause notice that merely adds an additional confiscation charge does not become a second notice. Adjudication is vitiated where the authority relies on enquiry reports, licence verification, witness statements, or other adverse material that was not supplied or properly disclosed, because the noticee cannot effectively rebut the case and natural justice is breached. A finding of attempted export must rest on fairly disclosed material and proximate acts showing the requisite intent. The adjudication was set aside and remanded for fresh decision after disclosure of the relied-upon materials.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the addendum issued to the show cause notice was illegal as a second show cause notice. (ii) Whether the adjudication order was vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice. (iii) Whether the finding that the seized cotton yarn was attempted to be exported to Bangladesh was legally sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the addendum issued to the show cause notice was illegal as a second show cause notice.

Analysis: The later communication merely inserted an additional charge that the boat was liable to confiscation under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962. It did not replace the original notice or initiate a fresh proceeding.

Conclusion: The addendum was valid and did not amount to a second show cause notice.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjudication order was vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority relied upon enquiry reports, licence verification, witness statements, and other materials adverse to the appellants, but those materials were neither supplied to them nor fully disclosed in the show cause notice. Reliance on undisclosed material prevented an effective rebuttal and caused prejudice.

Conclusion: The order was vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice.

Issue (iii): Whether the finding that the seized cotton yarn was attempted to be exported to Bangladesh was legally sustainable.

Analysis: An attempt requires an intention to commit the offence and an act sufficiently proximate to its commission. The finding of attempted export rested on materials not made available to the appellants, and the conclusion was reached without affording them a fair opportunity to meet the case against them. In those circumstances, the conclusion on attempted export could not stand.

Conclusion: The finding of attempted export was not legally sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after supplying the materials relied upon and observing natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication founded on undisclosed adverse material is vitiated for breach of natural justice, and a finding of attempted smuggling or export must rest on materials fairly disclosed to the noticee and on proximate acts evidencing the requisite intent.

---