The main legal point established in the judgment is that the specific requirements of natural justice, including the right to cross-examine witnesses, vary depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied uniformly and must be assessed in the context of each case.

1. The question for consideration is whether the expression "a reasonable opportunity of being heard" in clause (c) of S.124 of the Customs Act, 1962, includes a right to cross-examine persons who have not been summoned by the department as its witnesses, but whose statements are relied on by it in an enquiry against the petitioner. It is contended that such a right is derived from the principles of natural justice as embodied in the section.

2. The facts of this case are: The petitioner is the owner of car KLF. 4024 It is one of the several cars alleged to have been involved in smuggling activities on 14-11-1973. The car was seized by the Customs Officers on 15-11-1973 A notice was sent to the petitioner, together with copies of statements of certain persons, including that of the driver of his car, calling upon him to show cause as to why his car should not be confiscated under S.115 of the Customs Act, 1962. To this notice the petitioner sent Ext. P1 reply stating that he had no knowledge whatsoever of the alleged offence, that he had instructed his driver not to use the car for any unlawful purpose, that the trip sheet showed that the car had on 14-11-1973 gone to Irinjalakuda and returned to Cochin and again to Trichur and returned to Cochin at about 1 p.m. on the same day (both places being away from Kodungallur from where the smuggled goods are alleged to have been carried), and that his car was therefore not liable to be confiscated under S.115. On 20-8-1974 the petitioner was asked to furnish the names of witnesses he wished to examine at the time of personal bearing. Ext. P7 dated 6th September 1975 is the reply sent by the petitioner's advocate stating that Sri. P. C. Abraham (petitioner himself) and Sri. M. Abdul Kader were the two persons the petitioner wished to examine. Ext. P 3 is a letter informing the petitioner's advocate that the hearing would take place on 1 10 1974 and asking him to be present with the witnesses Apparently the hearing did not take place on that day. Ext. P 4 dated 30 91974 is a letter sent by the petitioner's advocate stating:

"Before the examination of defence witnesses it is highly necessary to afford an opportunity to cross-examine the witness of the Department. My client has not admitted the statements alleged to have been made by different persons before the Department authorities regarding the alleged incident.

Therefore, I, on behalf of my client, pray that an opportunity may be given to my client for cross-examination of Departmental witnesses."

Ext. P 5 memo dated September 1975 was sent to the petitioner with copy to his advocate in which the respondent stated:

"With reference to the replies of the undermentioned persons to the show cause notices of even number dated 213 74, they are informed that they may appear before the Additional Collector of Customs, Custom House, Cochin-3 for personal hearing at 11 a.m on 30 9-1975.

If this opportunity is not availed of for personal hearing the case will be decided on the basis of evidence available on records without any further reference to them."

Neither the petitioner nor his advocate was present at the time appointed for personal hearing i. e.11 a. m. on 30 91975. The advocate however appeared before the respondent in the afternoon. In Para.48 of Ext. P. 6 order the respondent states as follows regarding what took place when the advocate appeared before the respondent in the afternoon:

"Advocate Shri Sivasankaran who represented Shri P. C. Abraham and K. R. Dominic appeared before me on the afternoon on 30 - 9 - 75 in respect of the case which was heard in the morning. While explaining the circumstances under which he could not come at the appointed time, he specifically wanted to be recorded that the reliance on the statement without the witness being specifically produced by the department should not be accepted. On this premise, he added, there is no case against his clients and the consequential relief should be afforded."

Sri