9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to an order of adjudication dated 26-9-1991 regarding the clearance of goods. 2. Confiscation of concealed items and Cellulose Acetate cuttings, imposition of redemption fine and personal penalty. 3. Jurisdiction of the department to re-assess or re-adjudicate after assessment. 4. Validity of redemption fine and personal penalty imposed. 5. Consideration of the value of non-declared goods in the adjudication order. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged an order of adjudication dated 26-9-1991 concerning the clearance of goods, including concealed items found during examination. The order confiscated the concealed items and Cellulose Acetate cuttings, imposed a redemption fine, and a personal penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The petitioner contended that once an assessment is made by the department, no re-assessment or re-adjudication should occur. The department was urged to go on appeal against the assessment if aggrieved. The petitioner argued for the application of a judgment by the Delhi High Court in a similar case and requested a re-assessment by the respondents. 3. The department, represented by the Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, cited an unreported decision emphasizing the necessity to pass an order of assessment in cases of suppression of facts by importers. The department asserted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy through an appeal under the Customs Act before approaching the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Court considered arguments from both sides and found the levy of redemption fine and imposition of a personal penalty unsustainable. Citing previous judgments, the Court emphasized that penal provisions must be strictly construed and exercised with judicial discretion. The impugned order was set aside based on this ground. 5. Additionally, the Court noted that the adjudication order did not adequately consider the value of the non-declared goods, leading to a lack of findings in the order. The order primarily focused on classification and non-declared items without giving the petitioner a chance to address the value of the goods. Consequently, the Court ruled that the order could not be sustained on this ground as well. 6. Ultimately, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the Adjudicating Officer for a fresh order of adjudication within four weeks, with an opportunity for the petitioner to present their case. No costs were awarded in this decision.
|
