IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE BEFORE:

HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY WPO NO.378 OF 2025 WPO NO.436 OF 2025 SHUVAM CHATTERJEE VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

For the petitioner : Ms. Micky Chowdhury, Adv.

Mr. B. M. Pal, Adv.

For the respondent no.2 : Mr. Uday Shankar Bhattacharyya, Adv.

Mr. Kaustav K. Maiti, Adv.

Heard on : 24.07.2025 Judgment on : 24th July, 2025 RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J (ORAL):

1. The petitioner questioning the action of the adjudicating authority in connection with hearing of a show cause notice issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”), in not providing opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine certain witnesses, the writ petition being WPO 378/2025 has been filed.

2. Since during pendency of the writ petition, an adjudication order had been passed on 29th /30th May, 2025, the writ petition being WPO 436/2025 has been filed. By consent of the parties, both the writ petitions are taken up together and dealt with by this common order.

3. Though, the petitioner was a custom house agent, however, since his license was under suspension at the relevant point of time, the petitioner had brokered a deal with Mr. Sudipta Bose of M/s. Bose Enterprise, a customs house broker for generating Customs Transit Declaration for transhipment of Nepal bound Container on behalf of Nepalese importer namely M/s. Dolphin Trade and Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. And M/s. Kenal Nepal Pvt. Ltd., both business houses situated at Nepal.

4. On the basis of specific intelligence inputs, the two containers declared as containing goods for transhipment to Nepal were interdicted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as “DRI”) and on examination, the containers were found to contain a small amount of maize, (declared item) as cover cargo towards the front of the container and the rest of the container was found to be loaded with betel nuts. The details of the goods in both the containers was found as under:

Container No Weight of Maize Seeds Weight of Betel Nuts (KG) (Cover Cargo) (Kg)

SEKU5783875 (40’) 2800 24820 ZCSU8651307 (40’) 3060 24520

5. After examination, the containers were sealed and the goods were seized under Section 110 of the said Act on the reasonable belief that the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the said Act. Statements of Customs House Broker and others were obtained including that of the petitioner. Later the petitioner was issued a show cause under Section 124 of the said Act on 4^th April, 2024. The petitioner had duly responded to the same. At that stage, the petitioner did not seek for cross-examination of any of the other co-noticees. Subsequently, on 21st October, 2024 the petitioner by a request letter sought for permission to cross-examine the co-noticees and requested to keep the hearing in abeyance.

6. The petitioner never participated in the proceeding. Following the above, the order-in-original was passed on 29th/30th May, 2025.

7. Ms. Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing in support of the aforesaid writ petitions has drawn attention of this Court to the relevant documents, inter alia, including the show cause notice, the statement of the petitioner, the response filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice and the order- in-original. She would submit that, the adjudicating officer in the instant case by not providing the petitioner with the opportunity to cross-examine the other two co-noticees had violated the principles of natural justice which has caused immense prejudice to the petitioner. On such ground, the order cannot be sustainable. Independent of the above, she would submit that an entirely unreasoned order has been passed by the adjudicating authority. There is no finding against the petitioner that the petitioner had knowingly been involved in mis-declaration of the goods and consequentially could be held to be an abettor within the meaning of Section