2021 (10) TMI 600 - HC - Customs

Recovery of interest for drawback amount - definite stand of the petitioner is that no such order has been served on him and before which, no such proceedings or summons have been issued - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - An order seems to have been passed against the petitioner, which is starring at the petitioner and the same has to be challenged in the manner known to law. In order to enable the petitioner to challenge those orders, this Court feels that those orders along with the connected materials shall be furnished to the learned Counsel for the petitioner and on receipt of the same, it is open to the petitioner to challenge those orders. After challenging the main orders, depending upon the challenge, the present challenge made with regard to the consequential orders shall be maintained. The Writ Petition stands disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned orders based on lack of service of original order-in-original; Validity of consequential orders without challenging original order; Direction to furnish copies of show cause notice and summons for challenging main order.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to challenge the impugned order for recovery of interest for drawback amount, claiming lack of service of the original order-in-original dated 24.08.2020. The petitioner argued that no such order was served, and no proceedings or summons were issued before the impugned orders. However, the Customs Standing Counsel contended that show cause notice and summons were issued, but the petitioner failed to respond, leading to the order-in-original. The petitioner insisted that none of these notices or orders were served on him.

The Court acknowledged the existence of the order dated 24.08.2020 against the petitioner and emphasized the need to challenge it through proper legal channels. The Court directed the Customs to provide copies of the show cause notice, three summons, and the order-in-original to the petitioner through their counsel within two weeks. The petitioner was given the opportunity to challenge the main order, and depending on the outcome, the challenge to the consequential orders could be pursued. The Court disposed of the Writ Petition with these directions, emphasizing the importance of following the legal process.

In conclusion, the Court addressed the issue of lack of service of the original order-in-original and provided a pathway for the petitioner to challenge the main order, which would subsequently impact the validity of the consequential orders. The judgment highlighted the significance of adhering to legal procedures and ensuring proper service of notices and orders in matters of legal challenges.