Case law

Madras High Court · 8 Sep 2026

Shri Jitendra Kumar Jain, vs The Principal Commissioner O Customs

Legal principle

Where the adjudicating authority withdraws a defective personal hearing notice and undertakes to act in accordance with its memo before the High Court that cross-examination requests will be considered case-by-case within a reasonable time, the court will dispose of the writ petition with a direction to proceed accordingly.

Court decision

The Court held that nothing survived for adjudication, as the personal hearing notice had been withdrawn and the department undertook to act per the memo in W.P.No.15037 of 2023. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent to proceed in accordance with that memo; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed with no order as to costs. The outcome effectively favoured the petitioner, though without a merits ruling on the cross-examination demand.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Jitendra Kumar Jain, was issued Show Cause Notice No. 18 of 2023 dated 28.01.2023 under Section 28(4) read with Section 110AA of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication, Air), Chennai. By an interim reply dated 30.03.2023 he demanded cross-examination of the witnesses whose statements were relied upon and of the DRI officers who conducted the investigation, along with production of CCTV footage. In earlier litigation (W.P.No.15037 of 2023) the department filed a memo that the grant or disallowance of cross-examination would be considered on a case-to-case basis within a stipulated or reasonable time, and that petition was disposed of on that basis. Pursuant to that memo, the respondent instead issued a personal hearing notice dated 16.07.2026 allowing the petitioner only five minutes of hearing, prompting this writ petition for mandamus to restrain adjudication.

Key provisions