Shakti Mehta & Ors. v. UoI

What happened

On 5 October 2016, the DRI intercepted petitioners 2 to 4 at the IGI Airport, Delhi, who were travelling to Dubai, and recovered about 3,90,000 euros concealed in their turbans and, in each case, in the rectum. According to the respondents, the currency was supplied by petitioner No. 1, who arranged the carriers' travel, as the carriers said in statements under section 108. A show-cause notice of 3 April 2017 led to an Order-in-Original of 31 July 2018 confiscating the currency and the concealment material and imposing a penalty of ₹54,56,000. A writ petition against it (W.P.(C) 10197/2018) was not entertained and the petitioners were directed to appeal and seek cross-examination. Their appeals were rejected on 25 February 2022, and four revision applications before the Central Government were rejected by the order of 28 March 2025, which the petitioners challenged for denial of personal hearing.

Questions before the court

• Was the revisional authority's order passed in breach of natural justice for want of a personal hearing?

Why the court ruled this way

The Court recorded that the petitioners had been afforded four separate opportunities of personal hearing between September and December 2024; on three of them, 18 September, 27 September and 9 October 2024, no one appeared and adjournments were granted as indulgence (paragraph 12). The claim that counsel joined the video conference at 3.45 pm but was not admitted was an unsubstantiated averment contradicted by the personal-hearing sheet of 6 December 2024, which showed that only the Department's representative appeared (paragraph 14). The petitioners did not seek a hearing during the period from 6 December 2024, when the order was reserved, to 28 March 2025, when it was pronounced, which suggested lack of diligence (paragraph 15). The isolated clerical error in the order recording the hearing time as 11.30 am was explained by the hearing sheet and was not a foundational defect (paragraph 16). It could not be said that natural justice was violated (paragraph 17).

Controlling point

The petitioners were given repeated and adequate opportunity of hearing that they did not use, so the plea of nullity for denial of hearing fails.

Order and next steps

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Practical implications

A party that is offered hearing dates before a revisional authority should appear on each date or seek an adjournment on record, and keep evidence such as a video-conference log if it claims it could not join.

Limits of this ruling

• The Court decided only the natural-justice challenge to the revisional order on the record before it and did not revisit the merits of the confiscation or penalty.