Failure to adhere to principles of natural justice, including denial of cross-examination and opportunity to present defense evidence, warranted quashing of confiscation order and re-evaluation of the case.

JUDGMENT :

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.

1. In all these cases, the petitioners are the persons against whom proceedings of confiscation were initiated under the provisions of the Customs Act, in connection with the seizure of 25 kgs gold from the possession of some of the petitioners, from Thiruvananthapuram International Airport. All the petitioners are challenging the common Order-in-Original passed by the 3^rd respondent in all these writ petitions, by which, the gold seized were ordered to be confiscated and the petitioners were imposed with the fine/penalty. (For the sake of convenience, W.P.(C) No. 20753/2025 is taken as the leading case and hereinafter, the Exhibits and the respondents shall be mentioned in the sequence as referred to in the said writ petition unless otherwise mentioned).

2. The facts that led to the filing of these writ petitions are as follows:- Smt. Sareena Shaji and Sri. M.Sunilkumar, the 1^st and 2^nd petitioners respectively, in W.P.(C) No. 20753/2025, were apprehended at Thiruvananthapuram International Airport on 13.05.2019, by the officers of the DRI (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence), while they were coming from Dubai via Muscat at 07.44 hrs. From the two handbags held by the 2^nd petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 20753/2025, 25 kilograms of gold in the form of gold bars with 24 carat purity were recovered. The said gold bars were kept concealed, wrapped in polythene coated aluminum foil papers. According to the authorities, they were intercepted at the exit point after the custom check point/scanning point, which according to the officers would mean that, they managed to pass through the baggage scanning point, without declaring it and without the gold being detected. The mahazar prepared in this regard, which is Ext.P1 states that, the said persons were apprehended by the DRI officials, on getting a specific information regarding the attempted illegal import of gold, from some sources and the search of the person and their baggage were conducted in the presence of two individual witnesses, including a lady witness.

3. Based on the said proceedings, the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 20753/2025 were arrested and produced before First Class Magistrate Court-11 Thiruvananthapuram and they were remanded to judicial custody. Later, the statements of the said persons were recorded under Sec.108 of the Customs Act . During the interrogation, the role of some other persons including the petitioners in the other writ petitions were also revealed and accordingly, notices were issued, statement of such persons were recorded under Sec.108 and they were also made parties to the proceedings in question. Among the persons involved, an officer of the Customs, who was on duty at the Customs check point, is also there, as according to the respondents, he colluded with the other persons for illegal import.

4. Earlier, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 20745/2025, filed W.P.(C) No. 24506/2021 challenging the show cause notice issued to him, proposing to confiscate the gold and to impose penalty. In the said writ petition, he also challenged an order passed by the 3^rd respondent, by which, the request made by the said petitioner to cross-examine some of the witnesses were denied. When the said writ petition came up for consideration on 09.11.2021, an interim order was passed by this Court, permitting the continuation of the adjudication proceedings based on the said show cause notice. However, it wa