Case law

Madras High Court · 8 Sep 2026

Sri Vasavi Gold And Bullion Pvt, Ltd vs The Principal Commissioner O Customs

Legal principle

Where the department withdraws a disputed personal hearing notice and undertakes to consider a cross-examination request case-to-case in accordance with its earlier memo, the High Court will dispose of the writ with a direction to proceed accordingly rather than rule on the cross-examination question itself.

Court decision

The Court disposed of the writ petition, finding nothing survived for adjudication because the impugned personal hearing notice had been withdrawn, and directed the respondent to proceed in accordance with the memo filed in W.P.No.15582 of 2023; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed with no order as to costs. The petitioners effectively obtained the direction sought on the notice, but the Court made no substantive ruling on the claimed right to cross-examination.

Facts

Sri Vasavi Gold and Bullion Pvt Ltd and its director filed a writ of mandamus under Article 226 to restrain the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication, Air), Chennai from adjudicating pursuant to a personal hearing notice dated 16.07.2026 arising out of Show Cause Notice No. 18 of 2023 dated 28.01.2023, issued under Section 28(4) read with Section 110AA of the Customs Act, 1962 (the goods involved are not described in the extract). They demanded cross-examination of the witnesses whose statements were relied upon, of the DRI officers who conducted the investigation, and production of CCTV footage, as per an interim reply dated 30.03.2023. In an earlier writ (W.P.No.15582 of 2023) the department had filed a memo stating that the question of granting or disallowing cross-examination would be considered case-to-case within a stipulated or reasonable time. Instead, the respondent issued a personal hearing notice giving the petitioners only five minutes of hearing.

Key provisions