Customs authorities are required to disclose to the accused any materials prejudicial to them which they intend to rely on, even if the accused has not asked for a personal hearing.

( 1 ) THE facts in this case are shortly as follows: In this case, we are concerned with two partnership firms, Tarachand Shivkumar and Dulichand Kasiprosad. There are four partners in the first named firm, and five partners in the latter. Dulichand and Kasiprosad are the common partners. On or about 9-9-1954, the customs authorities in Calcutta advertised in the local papers inviting tenders for the purchase of 218 maunds 20 seers, approximate gross weight, of seized betel-nuts lying in the textile godown of the Customs House, Calcutta. On or about 21st September, 1954 Tarachand Shivkumar offered to purchase the goods and on the 23rd September, 1954 the goods were sold to them. Between 27th September, 1954 and the 1st October, 1954, 103 bags were delivered to the said firm by the customs authorities. It is stated that on 1st October, 1954 Tarachand Shivkumar made over 45 bags out of the said consignment, to a third party for processing and grading. . It is further stated that out of the goods so processed and graded, Tarachand Shivkumar sold 25 bags to Dulichand Kasiprosad, who are the petitioners before me, and they sent the goods, namely, 25 bags, to Howrah Station for being despatched to one, of their constituents in Uttar Pradesh, On the 22nd October, 1954 while these goods were at the Howrah Station, they were seized by the Land Customs Officer. On the 14th December, 1954 Tarachand Shivkumar wrote to the Collector of Customs stating that they understood from their buyers Dulichand Kasiprosad that 25 bags of betel nuts sold by them had been seized by the Land Customs Officer. . They then proceeded to state as follows:"in this connection we would like to remind you that the above goods, sold by us to them, were purchased by us from you on competitive tender held on 23/9/54. Moreover, the Inspectors of your office have inspected our books as well as our godowns arid satisfied with the same. As such, we do not find any valid reason for the detention of the above goods, so much as, our buyers have withheld the payment of our Bill simply on this reason. "

( 2 ) THEY asked for release of the goods. On the 16th December, 1954 Dulichand Kasiprosad wrote to the Collector of Customs asking for release of the goods. On the 18th December, 1954 notice to show cause was issued 'by the Superintendent of Central Excise and Land Customs, Central Preventive Circle, Calcutta, to the petitioners, a copy of which is included in annexure "a" to the petition. In that notice, it is stated that there was reason to believe that 25 bags of betelnuts weighing 48 mds. 10 seers had been imported by the petitioners from Pakistan into India without a valid permit or a valid import trade control licence and thereby an offence had been committed under Section 5 of the Land Customs Act, 1924 and Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The notice called upon the petitioners to show cause why penal action should not be taken against them for the said offence and why the said goods should not be confiscated. The notice further stated as follows:"all evidence, documentary or otherwise, in your possession should be produced in support of your explanation within the period specified above failing which the case will be decided ex parte. You should state at the same time whether you desire to be heard in person or through your legal representative in your defence by the said authority. On receipt of your reply, if necessary, and time and date will be fixed and communicated to you. "

( 3 ) ON the 22nd December, 1954 a letter was written on behalf of the petitioners to the Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs. As it has figured prominently in the argument of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents I set out below the relevant part of it:"dear Sir, reminding you again of your letter No. . . of 18th December and our last letter and subsequent to the conversation the undersigned had with you, we regret very much to note