1995 (7) TMI 95 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues: Bias of the Collector of Customs in adjudicating the proceedings.

The judgment pertains to an appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition challenging a show cause notice issued by the Collector of Customs. The appellant contended that the Collector was biased as he had filed a counter-affidavit justifying the notice, leading to a lack of impartiality in the proceedings. The court considered whether the Collector's actions amounted to bias and if the proceedings should be transferred to another authority. The court noted that the Collector had not participated in the proceedings or shown any bias in his actions. The appellant argued that the mere filing of the counter-affidavit disqualified the Collector from deciding the case, but the court disagreed, stating that the affidavit did not contain any conclusive decision on the matter at hand. The court emphasized that a real likelihood of bias must be proven to disqualify an authority from adjudicating a proceeding. It was concluded that the appellant's apprehension of bias was unfounded and lacked merit. The court highlighted that the appellant had the right to appeal under the Customs Act if there were grievances about the order. Consequently, the court rejected the stay petition and summarily dismissed the appeal, providing the parties with a certified copy of the judgment.

In summary, the main issue in this judgment was whether the Collector of Customs was biased in adjudicating the proceedings due to his filing of a counter-affidavit justifying the show cause notice. The court analyzed the actions of the Collector and the legal principles regarding bias in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. It was determined that the mere filing of the counter-affidavit did not disqualify the Collector from deciding the case, as it did not contain any conclusive decision. The court emphasized the need to prove a real likelihood of bias for an authority to be incapacitated from adjudicating a proceeding. Ultimately, the court found the appellant's apprehension of bias to be unjustified and rejected the appeal, highlighting the appellant's right to appeal under the Customs Act for any grievances.