2019 (7) TMI 1473 - HC - Customs

Service of Order - non receipt of an order made by the lone respondent - imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) of Customs Act - It s the case of the writ petitioner that though the writ petitioner came to know about this order in the course of his business, a certified copy of the order was never served on the writ petitioner - Error in the address of petitioner - HELD THAT - A perusal of the file reveals that the despatch of said order by the office of the respondent has infact happened and it is in a window envelope. Though it is in a window envelope, the name of the writ petitioner and the postal address is handwritten by the side of the transparent window - While the writ petitioner's residence is in '2nd North Street, Thiru.V.Ka.Nagar', the aforementioned returned envelope describes the same as 'Kennedy Street, TVK Nagar'. No elaboration is required to say that there is a world of difference between '2nd North Street, Thiru.V.Ka.Nagar' and 'Kennedy Street, TVK Nagar'. Writ petitioner counsel on instructions, emphatically asserted the aforesaid envelope was not refused by the writ petitioner - Obviously, it has been taken to another individual, who has refused it as he is not the intended recipient. In this backdrop, this Court deems it appropriate to accede to the prayer of the writ petitioner, holding that certified copy of said order has not been duly served on the writ petitioner. The respondent is directed to provide a certified copy of the said order by despatching it by Speed post with acknowledgment due to the full / complete and correct address of writ petitioner within a fortnight from today - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute over the receipt/non-receipt of an order imposing a penalty under the Customs Act.
- Allegation of failure to serve a certified copy of the order to the petitioner.
- Representation sent by the petitioner seeking a certified copy of the order.
- Respondent's claim of dispatching the order by Speed Post and it being returned as "Refused."
- Discrepancy in the address on the envelope containing the order.
- Court's decision on providing a certified copy of the order to the petitioner.

Analysis:
The main issue in this case revolves around the receipt/non-receipt of an order imposing a penalty under the Customs Act. The petitioner claimed that although he was aware of the order, he was not served a certified copy. The petitioner, residing at a specific address for over nine years, sent a representation seeking the certified copy after allegedly not receiving it despite the respondent's claim of dispatching it by Speed Post.

The respondent contended that the order was sent by Speed Post but returned as "Refused." However, upon producing the file, it was revealed that the address on the envelope containing the order was incorrect, differing from the petitioner's actual address. The discrepancy in the address led the court to conclude that the order was not duly served on the petitioner, as it was refused by another individual due to the incorrect address.

In light of the above findings, the court directed the respondent to provide a certified copy of the order to the petitioner within a specified timeframe, ensuring it is sent to the correct address. The court clarified that the date of receipt of the certified copy would be crucial for any future computations related to the impugned order. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of with this directive, and no costs were awarded in the matter.