9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, justification for interference with impugned order Ext. P14, denial of appellant's right to participate in proceedings before Collector, impact of earlier writ petition O.P. 4413/1984 on present case, statutory remedies under the Customs Act. Analysis: The appellant challenged Notice Ext. P-1 issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, which required him to show cause why action for confiscation of goods should not be taken. The Collector of Customs passed a final order confiscating the goods covered by three bills of entry and imposing a fine and a personal penalty. The appellant contended that he did not file a written statement in response to the notice as he had challenged it in a writ petition, O.P.No. 6439 of 1984. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, stating the appellant had a statutory right of appeal against the order, Ext. P14, and therefore, the court should not intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellant's counsel argued that the Collector proceeded without fixing a date of hearing, denying the appellant the opportunity to present his case. The respondents' counsel contended that the Collector's actions were bona fide. The court found that the appellant's right to be heard was denied without justification. The court noted that the appellant had previously filed a writ petition for similar relief, which the Single Judge declined to interfere with, directing the appellant to avail remedies under the Act. The court opined that the appellant's conduct was bona fide, considering the circumstances, and interfered with the impugned order, Ext. P14, solely on the ground that the appellant was not given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the Collector. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Single Judge's judgment and quashing the order of the Collector of Customs, Ext. P14. The appellant was granted two weeks to file a written statement before the Collector, who was directed to proceed with the matter after considering the statement and fixing a date of hearing. If the appellant failed to file a written statement within the specified time, the Collector was instructed to dispose of the case based on available material without providing further opportunity for the appellant to submit additional evidence. The court emphasized that if a fresh order is passed by the Collector after due notice, the aggrieved party cannot approach the court under Article 226 without exhausting statutory remedies under the Customs Act.
|
