2019 (7) TMI 1093 - HC - Customs

Imposition of penalty - abetting and aiding in the smuggling of Gold - no opportunity of personal hearing was provided as per Section 122-A of Customs Act, 1962 - Principles of Natural Justice - HELD THAT - No acknowledgment has been placed on record in support of the claim that the request of the petitioners for providing an opportunity of hearing was received by the respondent. The receipt of show-cause notice is not disputed by the petitioners. Except seeking for personal hearing, no further objections have been filed by the petitioners. It is ex-facie apparent that the petitioners have failed to avail the opportunity provided by the respondent to contest the matter. This Court is of the considered view that no writ petition is maintainable without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy available under the Act. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order for lack of personal hearing under Customs Act, 1962; Liability for penalty under Sections 112 and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962; Dispute over receipt of hearing request and subsequent order; Maintainability of writ petition without exhausting statutory remedy.

Analysis:
The petitioners contested an order issued by the respondent, claiming a lack of personal hearing as required by Section 122-A of the Customs Act, 1962. The order held the petitioners accountable for penalties under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Act due to their involvement in aiding smuggling activities. The petitioners had requested a personal hearing on a specific date, alleging that the respondent failed to provide this opportunity, leading to a violation of natural justice principles. The respondent, represented by counsel, disputed receiving the hearing request letter and argued that the petitioners did not pursue available remedies before filing the writ petition.

Upon review, the court noted the absence of evidence supporting the claim that the hearing request was received by the respondent. While the petitioners did not contest the receipt of the show-cause notice, they failed to present further objections beyond the request for a personal hearing. The court emphasized that the petitioners did not utilize the opportunity to contest the matter provided by the respondent. Consequently, the court deemed the writ petitions not maintainable without exhausting the statutory remedy available under the Act.

As a result, the court disposed of the writ petitions, granting the petitioners the liberty to pursue the statutory remedy under the Act. Any subsequent proceedings initiated by the petitioners would be considered by the relevant authorities on their merits and in accordance with the law, with no objection to the limitation period. The judgment underscores the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention and highlights the necessity of availing opportunities provided during administrative proceedings to contest allegations effectively.