2019 (1) TMI 9 - HC - Customs

Service of notice - Detention and sale of goods - import of old and used photocopiers - levy of redemption fine and penalty - case of Petitioner is that the Original-In-Order No.7575/2008, dated 27.03.2008 was not served on the Petitioner before passing the impugned detention notice - Held that - It has been specifically stated in the counter affidavit that through a letter dated, 09.04.2007, The Respondents had informed the Petitioner about the said order. Since no reply was received from the Petitioner, personal hearings were given on 17.2.2007, 20.12.2007 and 24.12.2007, by letter dated, 12.12.2007. However, the Petitioner did not appear for the personal hearing on the said dates. Thereafter, the Original-in-Order, dated 27.03.2008 was passed. The said order sent by the Respondent Department to the Petitioner was returned undelivered, with an endorsement left on 17.04.2008 and consequently, the impugned detention notice came to be passed, in terms of the provisions of the Act. The Petitioner failed to receive the postal communication to evade the payment of dues - Further, there is no bona fide reason stated by the Petitioner in the affidavit for refusal of receipt of the said Original-in-Order, dated 27.03.2008. The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that there was no proper service of notice before passing the impugned detention notice, cannot be accepted - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to detention notice based on failure to serve Order-in-Original before detention.

Analysis:
The petitioner imported photocopiers and faced penalties under the Customs Act. The detention notice was issued without serving the Order-in-Original, leading to a challenge based on violation of natural justice. The respondent argued that the penalties were justified, and the petitioner failed to appear for hearings. The respondent relied on legal precedents regarding service of notices via registered post. The petitioner contended that the Order-in-Original was not served before the detention notice, but the respondent claimed to have informed the petitioner about the order. The court found no merit in the petitioner's argument, stating that the detention notice was valid under the law. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the detention notice and emphasizing the importance of proper service of notices in legal proceedings.