2023 (12) TMI 1306 - HC - Customs

Conspiracy with the consignee and other persons - Smuggling - cigarettes - alloy wheels - metal scrap - initiation of proceedings under Sections 112 and 117 of Customs Act - notice was issued in compliance of provisions of Section 155(2) of the Act - HELD THAT - The factual aspect has to be gone into by the authorities as to whether the petitioner was responsible for clearing the container along with his co-employee. Apparently, the fact remains that he was placed under suspension immediately, which is also conceded as such by the Counsel for the petitioner, on the detection of the container having been cleared without following the procedure prescribed and the fact that the said container contained the goods which had not been declared. The larger issue thus, remains whether there was a conspiracy with the consignee and other persons. These are factual aspects which the writ Court will not go into. Since the reply has already been filed, it is opined that it is for the authorities to take a decision on the above said show cause notices and it is not for the writ Court to entertain the petition of an employee who prima facie is guilty of eating the fence. The present petition is dismissed at this stage without commenting upon the merits of the case leaving it open to the petitioner to take all his pleas before the authorities concerned.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the quashing of notices issued under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the subsequent proceedings under Sections 112 and 117 of the Act against the petitioner.

Judgment Summary:

Issue 1: Quashing of Notices under Customs Act
The petitioner, an Inspector (Customs), was involved in a case where a container was intercepted with undeclared goods. Notices were issued under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 to the petitioner and others. The petitioner delayed in responding to the notices and eventually filed a reply claiming innocence. The Court held that the authorities need to investigate the factual aspects of the case regarding the petitioner's involvement in clearing the container without proper examination. The Court declined to interfere at this stage and dismissed the petition, allowing the authorities to make a decision based on the replies submitted.

Key Details:
- The petitioner was suspended after the container was found to contain undeclared goods.
- The petitioner filed a reply justifying the delay and claiming innocence.
- The Court emphasized that the factual aspects should be determined by the authorities.
- The Court did not entertain the petition, leaving it to the authorities to decide based on the replies submitted.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the petition without commenting on the merits of the case, allowing the petitioner to present all pleas before the concerned authorities for further consideration.