Court finds multiple opportunities for personal hearing were provided; clerical error in hearing time does not vitiate order
In a significant ruling dated August 31, 2026, the Delhi High Court (Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain) dismissed the writ petition filed by Shakti Mehta and others challenging an order of the Central Government under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners had alleged violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically claiming denial of personal hearing while deciding their Revision Applications (RAs) against an Order-in-Appeal related to the confiscation of foreign currency.
The case originated from the seizure of approximately 3,90,000 Euros concealed on three carriers at IGI Airport, New Delhi, in October 2016. The petitioners were implicated in arranging the travel and concealment of the currency, leading to confiscation and imposition of penalty exceeding Rs. 54 lakhs. After exhausting initial adjudication and appellate remedies, the petitioners challenged the revision order passed by the Central Government, contending that they were denied a fair opportunity of personal hearing.
The petitioners argued that although hearings were scheduled on multiple dates (September 18, 27, October 9, and December 6, 2024), they were either adjourned for genuine reasons communicated in writing, including counsel's medical emergency, or the hearing was fixed at an inconvenient time and mode. They also cited a clerical error in the impugned order recording the hearing time as 11:30 AM when, according to them, their counsel had joined at 3:45 PM but the Additional Secretary failed to attend.
On the other hand, the respondents contended that the petitioners were provided repeated opportunities for personal hearing, including a final hearing fixed on December 6, 2024, after accommodating their requests for timing and mode. Records showed the petitioners failed to appear in the first three hearings and did not intimate any technical difficulties during the final virtual hearing. The clerical error in the order regarding hearing time was clarified by the personal-hearing sheet, which confirmed the absence of the petitioners' representatives. Furthermore, the petitioners did not seek any further hearing opportunity in the three months between the hearing and the passing of the order.
After detailed scrutiny of the records and submissions, the Court held that the principles of natural justice had been duly complied with. The petitioners were granted four opportunities for personal hearing, which they failed to utilize appropriately. The isolated clerical error was not fatal to the order and did not amount to denial of hearing. The Court emphasized that failure to pursue remedies diligently during the intervening period indicated the petitioners had no further submissions to make.
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the impugned order passed under the Customs Act, 1962.
This judgment reaffirms the importance of procedural fairness in administrative proceedings while underscoring that parties must act diligently and responsibly to avail the opportunities granted to them.
Bottom Line:
Customs Act - Principles of natural justice - Denial of personal hearing - Petitioners were granted repeated opportunities for personal hearing, but failed to appear or adequately pursue remedies - Clerical errors in recording hearing time do not vitiate the order. Compliance with procedural fairness upheld.
Statutory provision(s):
Customs Act, 1962 Section 129DD
Shakti Mehta v. Union of India, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2972660
