Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 39120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Ziyad Rahman A.A., J
John Paul – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WP(C) No.19863 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Meenakshy Parvathy, Nandagopan M.C., Arun T.S.
For the Respondents: Jolima George
The right of a noticee to cross-examine witnesses in confiscation proceedings under the Customs Act is not an absolute right and is granted only in exceptional cases where denial would cause serious prejudice.
Headnote:The petitioners challenged an order rejecting their application for cross-examination of witnesses during confiscation proceedings initiated under the Customs Act following the seizure of gold at Cochin International Airport. The court previously directed the competent officer to consider the application, resulting in the impugned order which denied the request for cross-examining co-noticees, a gold assayer, and an investigation officer. The primary issue was whether the petitioners had an absolute right to cross-examine witnesses in confiscation proceedings. The court reasoned that the right to cross-examine in such proceedings is not absolute and can only be granted in exceptional cases where denial would cause serious prejudice to the noticees. It found that co-noticees cannot be summoned as a matter of right and the gold assayer's role was limited to certification, making them an incompetent witness for the seizure itself. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed, however, without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners with regard to the sustainability of the proceedings, which shall be considered by the competent authority in the confiscation proceedings now in progress.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of the confiscation proceedings and the challenge against the rejection of cross-examination. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. analysis of why specific witnesses (co-noticees, assayer, officer) are not subject to mandatory cross-examination. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. the limited and non-absolute nature of the right to cross-examine in customs confiscation proceedings. (Para 7) |
OTHER PRESENT:
SHRI.V.GIRISHKUMAR, SC, SMT.JOLIMA GEORGE, CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners were issued with Ext.P1 show cause notice, as part of confiscation proceedings under the provisions of the Customs Act. The said proceedings were initiated, based on the confiscation of gold effected on 16.05.2024, from Cochin International Airport. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioners have submitted an application to cross examine some witnesses and since the same was not considered, they have approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 14647/2026. This Court, as per Ext.P7 judgment dated 10.04.2026, disposed of the said writ petition, directing the competent officer to consider the application submitted by the petitioners for cross examination and pass orders thereon.
2. In the light of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P7, now an order has been passed by the 4th respondent, copy of which is produced as Ext.P8, by which, the application submitted by the petitioners for cross examination was rejected. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioners challenging the said order.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent.
4. On going through the contents of Ext.P8, it can be seen that, a detailed consideration of the request made by the petitioner for cross examination has been made. It is seen from the said order and the connected records that, among the persons whose cross examination was sought, there were co-noticees as well, and therefore, the request for cross examination of those witnesses were declined on that reason. As far as the said reason is concerned, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere. This is because, the petitioners do not have any vested right to summon the co-noticees and to cross examine them in the confiscation proceedings.
5. One of the other witnesses sought to be cross examined, was the gold assayer who issued a technical examination certificate in his official capacity. As far as the cross examination of the said witness is concerned, he is not a competent witness to speak about the seizure as such, as the role of the witness is only to certify the gold and its quality and quantity. Therefore, that was rejected by the 4th respondent. On that reason also and I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere.
6. As far as the remaining witnesses sought to be examined in the said proceeding by the petitioner are concerned, one is an investigation officer and it is an admitted position that the respondents are not relying upon the statement of the said person. Therefore, the request for cross examination of the said witness was also rejected.
7. Thus, after carefully going through the records, I find that, there is no necessity to interfere with Ext.P8 order. This is particularly because, as far as the right of the noticee to cross examine a witness in a confiscation proceedings under Customs Act is concerned, the same is not absolute and such noticee cannot claim the same as of a right. Only in exceptional cases, where, the denial of cross examination would cause serious prejudice to the noticees, then only, such permission can be granted. In this case, on going through the entire materials and examining the reasons mentioned in Ext.P8, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order passed.
Accordingly, this writ petiti
