Delhi High Court Finds No Natural Justice Violation In Customs Case After Four Missed Hearings

The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea challenging a Customs order on the ground that Petitioners were denied a personal hearing, holding that they had been given repeated and adequate opportunities, which they failed to avail.

The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain observed that adjournments were granted as an indulgence rather than as a right, and that Petitioners were afforded four opportunities of personal hearing between September and December 2024.

The case arose from the seizure of approximately 3,90,000 EUR from three persons at the Delhi airport in October 2016. The three were travelling to Dubai and disclosed before their personal search that foreign currency had been concealed in their turbans and rectums.

The Customs authorities subsequently issued a show-cause notice proposing confiscation of the foreign currency and penalties.

In July 2018, the adjudicating authority found the Petitioners guilty, ordered confiscation of the recovered currency and the material used for its concealment, and imposed a penalty of ₹54.56 lakh.

The Petitioners had first approached the High Court, which directed them to pursue their remedy before the Appellate Authority and seek cross-examination; after their appeals were rejected, they filed revision applications mainly contending that no witness had been allowed to be cross-examined.

The applications were rejected, following which they approached the High Court alleging violation of natural justice.

Petitioners submitted that hearings fixed for September 27 and October 9, 2024 had to be adjourned for bona fide reasons. They also claimed that their counsel had sought a physical, post-lunch hearing and that when the matter was ultimately fixed for virtual hearing on December 6, 2024, counsel had joined through video conference but the Additional Secretary was unavailable.

The Department however contended that four opportunities had been to Petitioners but they failed to appear on the first three dates. As regards the final hearing on December 6, they said the virtual hearing was duly intimated and that only the Department appeared.

The High Court also found that the record did not support the petitioners' claim.

It rejected the assertion that counsel had connected through video conference while the Additional Secretary failed to join, noting that the personal-hearing sheet recorded only the Department's appearance and that Petitioners had produced no document substantiating their claim.

“...Petitioners did not pursue their remedies…with due diligence,” the Court observed, adding that their silence was “difficult to reconcile with the conduct of a party genuinely aggrieved by an alleged denial of hearing.”

Thus finding that Petitioners had been granted repeated and adequate opportunities but failed to avail themselves of them through their own conduct, the Court dismissed the petition.

For Petitioner: Advocate Dr. Ashutosh, Advocate Dalip Singh and Advocate Komal Sharma.

For Respondent: Senior Panel Counsel Vedansh Anand with Advocate Shivam Kumar for Union of India; Advocate Ayush Gaur, Advocate Ridhi Kapoor and Advocate Shivranjani; Senior Standing Counsel Anushree Narain with Advocate Apurv Yadav and Advocate Naman Choula for Respondent No. 2.