2012 (12) TMI 163 - HC - Customs

Service of Notice - held that - dservice on the address shown as per the record is a service of the order in terms of Section 153 of the Customs Act. No other method is permissible. The department has shown by the original file to show despatch on 08.03.2012 by speed post acknowledgement due. Therefore, the service is in order. Violation of principles of natural justice - held that - It is incumbent on the counsel to have verified the address when he received the appellate authority s order and intimated it to the authorities in the de novo proceedings so as to change the address -The counsel states that he had intimated so. But no proof has been shown or filed to support it. - said plea is also rejected - Hence, considering all these aspects, this Court opines that the petitioner is not diligently prosecuting the matter. Since there is lack of bona fides, petitioner is not entitled to any relief and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to Order-in-Original No.18452/2012 for demand of Rs.4,91,000 in relation to bills of entry.
2. Appeal to Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) setting aside the order and remanding for de novo enquiry.
3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty under Sections 111(d), 111(o), and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Allegation of denial of opportunity and violation of principles of natural justice due to improper service and lack of personal hearing.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenged Order-in-Original No.18452/2012 demanding Rs.4,91,000 for bills of entry due to failure to produce the B.15 Registration Certificate for goods cleared provisionally. The petitioner appealed to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) who set aside the order and remanded the matter for de novo enquiry by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The petitioner failed to appear for personal hearings, leading to the authority proceeding ex-parte and passing orders for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties under Sections 111(d), 111(o), and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The petitioner alleged a denial of opportunity and violation of natural justice, claiming no notice of personal hearing was served, causing prejudice. The petitioner argued that the order was dispatched to a non-existent address, leading to improper service. However, the respondents contended that the address used for communication was consistent with previous proceedings and appeals, and the notices were sent to the correct address as per records. The court held that service on the address as per the record was valid under Section 153 of the Customs Act, rejecting the petitioner's claim of improper service.

3. The court further dismissed the allegation of violation of natural justice regarding the lack of personal hearing, as the record showed notices of personal hearing sent to the correct address, and the petitioner's failure to appear was noted. The court emphasized that the department must send notices to the address as per the record, and failure to appear in response to notices was the petitioner's own peril. Additionally, the court highlighted the petitioner's lack of diligence in prosecuting the matter and lack of bona fides, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition and connected miscellaneous petitions without costs.