2020 (2) TMI 767 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - period of limitation prescribed for preferring an appeal - Section 128 of the Customs Act - HELD THAT - It is urged that the documents enlisted in Annexure-A to show cause notice were not supplied. The Petitioners were not permitted to cross-examine the persons whose statements are relied upon and no separate penalty can be imposed upon the Proprietor and the Firm. In order to test the argument so advanced, we have gone through the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority. We find that all the points consisting of disputed question of facts are dealt with in the order. If the findings recorded are wrong, the jurisdiction of the appellate authority is wider than the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to appreciate or re-appreciate even the evidence on record. We, therefore, do not find any reason to entertain this Writ Petition. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order confiscating smuggled betel nuts under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns the challenge to an order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs confiscating a consignment of smuggled betel nuts valued at Rupees 2,65,68,246 under Sections 111(b), 111(d), and 111(h) of the Customs Act, 1962. The order also includes penalties and consequential orders. The primary issue raised was whether the petitioners could challenge the order through a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite the availability of an alternate statutory remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act to file an appeal within 60 days. The petitioners relied on a decision of the Gujarat High Court to support their position that a Writ Petition could be filed when the adjudicating authority acted in disregard of law, rules, or principles of natural justice.

The petitioners contended that certain documents listed in the show cause notice were not provided to them, they were not allowed to cross-examine relevant individuals, and argued against the imposition of separate penalties on the Proprietor and the Firm. However, upon reviewing the findings of the adjudicating authority, the Court determined that all disputed factual issues were addressed in the order. The Court emphasized that if the findings were incorrect, the appellate authority had broader jurisdiction than a Writ Petition under Article 226 to reassess the evidence on record. Consequently, the Court found no justification to entertain the Writ Petition and dismissed both petitions.

The judgment concluded by granting the petitioners the option to pursue the appropriate remedy available under the law, indicating that they could approach the appellate authority for condonation of any delay in accordance with legal procedures. Overall, the Court's decision highlighted the importance of following statutory remedies and the limitations of Writ Petitions in challenging administrative orders under the Customs Act, 1962.