2019 (9) TMI 1222 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - alternate remedy of appeal - Benefit of concessional rate of duty - demand of differential duty - import of Areca nuts. Whether it is an established position that there have been breach of principles of natural justice and, if disputed questions of fact arise on this aspect? - Whether the same point can also be urged in a substantive appeal which remedy is available to the Petitioners under section 129 of the Customs Act? HELD THAT - The conduct of the Petitioners is such that the Petitioners are not entitled to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. This is not a fit case where we can conclusively hold that the Petitioners were not aware of the proceedings and that there is no merit in the stand of the Respondents that the Petitioners have deliberately adopted this strategy so as to create lacuna to challenge the impugned order. Since the Petitioners have an alternate remedy of appeal against the impugned order and that the Petitioners can urge all the points available to them in law including those raised in this petition before the Appellate Authority, we do not feel it necessary to delve upon the matter any further. Petition rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under Customs Act, 1962 regarding denial of concessional rate of duty, differential duty, confiscation of goods, and penalties; Allegation of mis-declaration of country of origin in import of Areca nuts and Cardamom from Sri Lanka; Violation of principles of natural justice in adjudication proceedings.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged an order passed by the Additional Director General (Adjudication) under the Customs Act, 1962, denying them the benefit of a concessional rate of duty, and imposing a differential duty, confiscation of goods, and penalties totaling a significant amount. The petitioners, involved in trading Areca nuts and Cardamom from Sri Lanka, were accused of mis-declaring the country of origin to avail duty benefits under a Free Trade Agreement. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence issued a show cause notice, and subsequent proceedings revealed discrepancies in the import declarations. The petitioners requested a common adjudicator for multiple port imports, but failed to participate effectively in the adjudication process.

The primary issue raised was the alleged violation of principles of natural justice in the adjudication proceedings. The petitioners contended that notices were not served properly, citing provisions of the Customs Act and a circular emphasizing fair opportunities for response. Conversely, the respondent argued that the petitioners engaged in systematic fraud and failed to update their address with authorities, justifying their actions as appealable before the Appellate Authority. The court acknowledged the importance of natural justice but highlighted the availability of statutory remedies.

The court examined the conduct of the petitioners and found that they were aware of the proceedings and failed to update their address, impacting the service of notices. The court emphasized that the petitioners, being aware of the show cause notice and subsequent proceedings, could not claim ignorance or lack of opportunity. Referring to a circular and case law, the court concluded that the petitioners' conduct did not warrant invoking the court's extraordinary jurisdiction, especially when an alternate remedy of appeal existed. Consequently, the writ petition was rejected, affirming the availability of legal recourse through the Appellate Authority for the petitioners to address all legal points, including those raised in the petition.

In summary, the court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order under the Customs Act, emphasizing the petitioners' awareness of the proceedings and the availability of statutory appeal remedies. The judgment underscored the significance of maintaining updated information with authorities and utilizing established legal avenues for redressal, rather than seeking extraordinary intervention in cases with statutory recourse.