2016 (1) TMI 1001 - HC - Customs

The present writ application, in fact, has been filed after almost eight months of the aforesaid dismissal of the review application on the ground that only on 07.09.2010 the petitioner could get a copy of the release order of sale of consignment of the petitioner dated 04.08.2005 which according to him had given him new cause of action for the relief sought in this writ application. This Court however fails to understand as to how the present writ application can be held to be maintainable specially when the finding of the learned single Judge as with regard to that very auction sale, whose quashing is being sought herein, was approved in no uncertain terms by this Court. This Court is not inclined to now allow the petitioner to reagitate the same issue in a different manner specially when the seized goods in the year 2001 has already been disposed of by the auction sale in the year 2005 and the writ application, appeal, Special Leave Petition and two review applications one before the Division Bench and another before the learned single Judge of this Court, have been dismissed on the same issue. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed with a cost quantified at ₹ 10,000/- which must be deposited by the petitioner in the Patna High Court Legal Services Authority.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ application on the grounds of res judicata and constructive res judicata.
2. Legality of the seizure and confiscation of goods.
3. Redemption of seized goods and payment of penalties.
4. Auction of seized goods and procedural fairness.
5. Validity of subsequent legal actions and appeals by the petitioner.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the writ application on the grounds of res judicata and constructive res judicata:

The court upheld the preliminary objection raised by the respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ application. It was noted that the petitioner's earlier writ application for identical relief had been dismissed by a single judge, affirmed by the Division Bench in a Letters Patent Appeal, and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Apex Court. The court emphasized that no fresh writ application would lie for the same cause of action on the grounds of res judicata and constructive res judicata. The principle of res judicata is applicable to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as established in the case of Daryao and Others v. State of U.P. and Others.

2. Legality of the seizure and confiscation of goods:

The Joint Commissioner of Customs, exercising power under Section 122 of the Customs Act, had directed the confiscation of the seized goods under Section 111(b) of the Act. An option was given to the owner to redeem the goods on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 75,000/- within one month. The petitioner did not exercise this option within the stipulated time nor filed an appeal within the required period. The court noted that the petitioner failed to provide evidence to substantiate the legality of the goods and their transportation, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal.

3. Redemption of seized goods and payment of penalties:

The petitioner did not deposit the redemption amount of Rs. 75,000/- nor made any prayer before the appellate authority for extending the period for redemption. The court highlighted that the petitioner himself did not exercise the option given by the original authority within the prescribed period. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority, and the Tribunal also dismissed the appeal for default. The petitioner's subsequent attempt to redeem the goods after the dismissal of the appeal was not entertained as the goods had already been auctioned.

4. Auction of seized goods and procedural fairness:

The petitioner challenged the auction of the seized goods on the grounds of lack of notice and undervaluation. However, the court found that the auction was conducted in compliance with the Customs Act and was neither in violation of the principles of natural justice nor the provisions of the Act. The court noted that the seized goods vested with the Central Government under Section 126 of the Customs Act after the dismissal of the petitioner's appeals. The auction was held on 04.08.2005, when no proceeding was pending before any authority or Tribunal.

5. Validity of subsequent legal actions and appeals by the petitioner:

The petitioner's subsequent legal actions, including the filing of review applications and the present writ application, were dismissed on the grounds of res judicata and constructive res judicata. The court emphasized that the earlier findings had become final and binding, and reopening the same issues would be against the settled principles of res judicata. The court also dismissed the reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. and Anr. v. Janapada Sabha Chhindwara and Ors., as the facts were distinguishable and not applicable to the present case.

Conclusion:

The writ application was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner in the Patna High Court Legal Services Authority within one month, failing which the amount would be recovered by the Collector of East Champaran District through a certificate proceeding. The court reiterated the applicability of the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata, emphasizing the finality of earlier judicial decisions and the impropriety of reopening settled issues.