High Court Quashes Custom Adjudication Orders Due to Denial of Cross-Examination:

High Court Quashes Custom Adjudication Orders Due to Denial of Cross-Examination The case arose from a gold smuggling investigation at Thiruvananthapuram International Airport, where several individuals, including Muhammed Ali Haji P.P., were proceeded against by the Customs Department of India. The adjudication relied largely on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, including that of a Customs Inspector who was treated as a key witness. During the proceedings, the petitioners repeatedly asked for permission to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were being used against them. The Commissioner of Customs declined the request and passed Orders-in-Original imposing penalties and confiscation of goods. Challenging these orders, the petitioners approached the Kerala High Court, arguing that the refusal to allow cross-examination violated both the statutory procedure under Section 138B and the basic principles of natural justice. Main Issue: Whether statements recorded during investigation can be relied upon in adjudication without allowing the affected party an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.

HC Held: The High Court set aside the adjudication orders and sent the matter back for fresh consideration. The Court explained that Section 138B lays down a clear procedure before statements recorded during investigation can be used as evidence. The adjudicating authority must first examine the witness and decide on the relevance of the earlier statement. Only then can the statement be relied upon, and the person facing the proceedings must be given the chance to cross-examine that witness.

The Court stressed that cross-examination is not merely a procedural formality; it is an essential safeguard that allows a party to test the reliability of the evidence being used against them. Since the Commissioner relied on witness statements without giving the petitioners this opportunity, the entire adjudication process stood vitiated. The impugned orders were therefore quashed and the matter was remanded for fresh proceedings in accordance with law. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below