2016 (8) TMI 432 - HC - Customs

Exemption Notification No.12/2012-Customs, dated 17.3.2012. - import of garment accessories in the name of Apparel Exporters - cross-examination of witnesses - articles 226 of the constitution - Section 124(a) of the customs Act - alternate remedy under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - it is a settled legal position that the Customs Act and other Taxation Statutes are a complete Code by themselves. The enactment provides for a hierarchy of remedies and an aggrieved person should not be permitted to bypass the statutory remedy available under the Act, especially when the matter relates to a taxation Statute. On the grounds raised by the petitioner, the Court cannot exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order and allow the petitioner to bypass the appeal remedy - writ petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Order-in-Original regarding customs offense related to import of garment accessories and misuse of exemption Notification No.12/2012-Customs.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original issued by the first respondent regarding a customs offense concerning the import of garment accessories and the alleged misuse of exemption Notification No.12/2012-Customs. The petitioner was the 18th noticee among a total of 40 persons who received show cause notices. After receiving the notice, the petitioner requested an inspection of documents to prepare their objections. The first respondent granted an opportunity for personal hearing to all noticees, including the petitioner, and the petitioner submitted their objections after the second opportunity of personal hearing.

2. The petitioner requested a personal hearing and permission to cross-examine witnesses in their reply to the show cause notice. The first respondent adjudicated the matter and imposed penalties on the noticees. The petitioner argued that they were not granted a reasonable opportunity to be heard as required by the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was defective and the impugned order was illegal due to the lack of a proper hearing.

3. The court noted that 26 noticees, including the petitioner, had engaged the same counsel who represented them collectively. The court found that the opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the noticees based on the records. The petitioner's counsel did not clearly establish the need for separate personal hearings for each noticee. The court emphasized that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962, to appeal against the impugned order.

4. The court emphasized that the Customs Act and other taxation statutes provide a comprehensive framework of remedies, and aggrieved parties should not bypass the statutory appeal process, especially in tax-related matters. The court concluded that it could not interfere with the impugned order based on the grounds raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed.