Service of Notice to Family Member Valid Under Section 153 of Customs Act: Kerala High Court - 2025-06-11

Virtual Participation Trumps Procedural Claims in Kerala Gold Smuggling Case

In a recent clarification regarding the operational procedures of the Customs Act, 1962 , the Kerala High Court has affirmed that the service of a show-cause notice upon an adult family member constitutes valid legal service. The ruling settles a dispute where a petitioner attempted to challenge a gold confiscation order by claiming that his elderly parents, who received the initial notice, failed to understand its significance.

The Backdrop: A Contested Seizure

The case arose following an intervention by the Air Intelligence Unit on June 6, 2023. The petitioner, returning from abroad, was found in possession of approximately 1,097.57 grams of gold in paste form. Subsequent to this, a show-cause notice was issued under the Customs Act.

The petitioner later challenged the resulting confiscation order and a penalty of Rs. 6,00,000, arguing that his absence from the country and his parents' lack of literacy essentially deprived him of the right to respond to the notice. He sought a fresh opportunity to contest the allegations, claiming the adjudicating process was fundamentally flawed.

Arguments in the Balance

The petitioner maintained that the notice was not effectively relayed to him, thereby violating principles of natural justice. He argued that he was denied a fair opportunity to defend his position before the authority.

Conversely, the Revenue department, represented by standing counsel, relied on Section 153(1)(a) of the Customs Act, which explicitly permits the service of notices to any adult member of the noticee's family. They further pointed to records showing that the petitioner had indeed availed himself of an online personal hearing on January 11, 2024, during which he offered explanations without raising any objections regarding the receipt of the show-cause notice.

Judicial Analysis: The Weight of Participation

The High Court underscored that procedural requirements under Section 153 were satisfied by serving the document to the petitioner’s family member. Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A. emphasized that the petitioner's subsequent participation in the virtual hearing severely undermined his claims of a denied opportunity.

The court observed that having participated in the adjudication process and having had the opportunity to present his version of events, the petitioner could not now pivot to claim that he was unaware of the proceedings.

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies that the courts will not permit procedural technicalities to be used as a shield when there is clear evidence of actual participation:

> "As far as the service of notice on the adult member in the family of the noticee is concerned, the same could be treated as proper service as contemplated under S.153 of the Customs Act, 1962 ."

> "...it is an admitted fact that the petitioner appeared for personal hearing through online mode... no contention was raised by the petitioner with the regard to the non receipt of the show cause notice or denial of opportunity to submit reply to the same."

> "I am of the view that, the contentions that the petitioner was denied a proper opportunity to contest the matter cannot be accepted."

Final Verdict: Implications for Future Adjudication

The Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition, reinforcing the validity of the original order. The decision serves as a significant precedent for customs authorities, confirming that service of notices to resident family members remains legally sound. Furthermore, it highlights that a party who actively participates in a virtual hearing effectively waives their right to later claim they were denied a proper notice or an opportunity to be heard, provided they failed to raise these objections during the primary adjudication hearing.