2021 (12) TMI 199 - HC - Customs

Seeking permission for withdrawal of petition - seizure of goods - Big cardamom - HELD THAT - Since petitioners have been pursuing the matter before this Court, issue of limitation shall not come in the way, if the appeal is preferred within next four weeks. The petition is dismissed reserving liberty to prefer an appeal before the CESTAT (constituted under Section 129 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal).

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of Show Cause Notice and Original Order
2. Appeal Dismissal by Commissioner (Appeals)
3. Legality of Seizure of Goods and Proceedings
4. Application of Mind in Issuing Orders

Analysis:

1. The petitioners sought relief for quashing a Show Cause Notice and an Original Order issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Customs (Prev.) Division Forbesganj. The Notice informed the petitioners about the seizure of Big cardamom and their involvement in illegal importation, contravening various provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners challenged the Order passed by the Joint Commissioner, Customs (Prev.) Hqrs, Patna, which held them liable for penalty and confiscated the goods. The petitioners argued that their defense reply was not properly considered. The High Court disposed of the petition as the petitioners sought to withdraw it with liberty to appeal before CESTAT.

2. The petitioners also challenged the dismissal of their appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, CGST & CX, Patna. The appeals were filed against the orders passed by the Joint Commissioner. The Commissioner dismissed the appeals, leading to the petitioners seeking relief for quashing the consequential order. However, the High Court disposed of the petition as the petitioners sought to withdraw it with liberty to appeal before CESTAT.

3. The petitioners contested the legality of the seizure of goods on 09.01.2019 by the officials of Customs and the initiation of proceedings. They argued that the seizure and proceedings were illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. The petitioners sought a direction for the release of the seized goods pending the disposal of the writ application. The High Court disposed of the petition as the petitioners sought to withdraw it with liberty to appeal before CESTAT.

4. The petitioners also sought relief for holding that the Show Cause Notice and the consequential orders passed by the respondents were without application of mind, illegal, arbitrary, whimsical, and without justification. They claimed that the orders lacked proper consideration and justification. The High Court disposed of the petition as the petitioners sought to withdraw it with liberty to appeal before CESTAT. The Court noted that the issue of limitation would not arise if the appeal was preferred within the next four weeks.