Plea by four men linked to €3.9 lakh hidden in turbans and rectums dismissed over alleged denial of hearing

On 5 October 2016, officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted Petitioner Nos. 2–4 at IGI Airport while they were travelling to Dubai. Approximately EUR 3,90,000 was recovered after the Petitioners disclosed that foreign currency had been concealed in their turbans and rectums. The Respondents alleged that Petitioner No. 1 had supplied the currency and arranged the carriers’ travel. Statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 attributed the currency to Petitioner No. 1

A show-cause notice dated 3 April 2017 was issued proposing confiscation and penalty. By Order-in-Original dated 31 July 2018, the adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of the currency and concealment material and imposed a penalty of Rs. 54,56,000/-

The Petitioners’ earlier writ petition seeking remand and an effective opportunity, including cross-examination, was not entertained; they were directed to approach the appellate authority. Their appeals were dismissed by a common Order-in-Appeal dated 25 February 2022. Their revision applications under Section 129DD of the Customs Act were thereafter rejected by the Central Government through the impugned order dated 28 March 2025.

The Petitioners challenged the revisional order principally on the ground that they had been denied a personal hearing. The Respondents maintained that four opportunities of hearing had been granted, including a final virtual hearing fixed for 6 December 2024, but the Petitioners did not appear.

Whether the impugned revisional order dated 28 March 2025 was vitiated by violation of natural justice because the Petitioners were allegedly denied an effective personal hearing?

Whether the discrepancy in the impugned order regarding the time of hearing constituted a foundational procedural defect invalidating the order?

The Court applied Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, governing revision applications before the Central Government.

It further applied the principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem , under which a party must be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before an adverse decision is made. However, the Court held that where repeated and adequate opportunities are granted and the party fails to avail them, a subsequent challenge based on denial of hearing cannot ordinarily succeed.

A bona fide clerical error concerning the hearing time does not invalidate an order where the contemporaneous record establishes the correct hearing arrangements and the conduct of the proceedings.

The Court found that the Petitioners had received four opportunities of personal hearing on 18 September, 27 September, 9 October and 6 December 2024. On the first three dates, no one appeared for them, and the adjournments sought were granted as indulgences rather than as enforceable rights.

For the final hearing, the Central Government accommodated the Petitioners’ requests regarding the mode and timing of hearing and fixed a virtual hearing between 3:00 p.m. and 3:45 p.m., with intimation communicated on the morning of 6 December 2024.

The Petitioners’ assertion that counsel joined the video conference but the Additional Secretary failed to appear was unsupported by evidence and contradicted by the personal-hearing sheet, which recorded only the Department’s appearance.

The Petitioners also did not seek another hearing during the period between 6 December 2024 and pronouncement of the order on 28 March 2025, conduct inconsistent with a genuine and continuing grievance regarding denial of hearing.

The reference to an 11:30 a.m. hearing in the impugned order was treated as a clerical error, since the hearing sheet clarified the actual hearing arrangement and did not show that the Petitioners were denied an opportunity.

The writ petition was found devoid of merit and was dismissed, with the impugned order dated 28 March 2025 left undisturbed.