2022 (5) TMI 661 - HC - Customs

Seizure of mobile phones - sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioners provided or not - violation of the principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - In view of the second respondent s perfunctory dismissal of the explanation offered by the petitioners with the observation that the petitioners defence is a melodramatic narration of circumstances surrounding the seizure of the iPhones and a script for a Potboiler, and the repeated reference to the petitioners approaching this Court in W.P. No. 20110/2021 without availing the remedy of revision under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, this Court must opine that, notwithstanding any other remedy that could be available to the petitioners against the impugned order, the petition must be allowed quashing the impugned order and restoring the appeals to the file of the second respondent for reconsideration without much ado to ensure that the proceedings are decided strictly on merits and upon consideration of all material dispassionately in accordance with law after due opportunity. The petition is allowed in part.

Summary

Issues: Impugned order dated 24.2.2022 in Customs Appeal, Second round of litigation, Violation of principles of natural justice, Prejudice against petitioners, Approach to High Court instead of revisional authority, Dismissal of appeals, Seizure of mobile phones valued at Rs.2,74,19,400.

Analysis:
The judgment involves the challenge against the impugned order dated 24.2.2022 in Customs Appeal Nos.643 to 645/2022 Cus (B.Air) by the petitioners, marking the second round of litigation before the Court. The initial round of litigation in W.P.No.20110/2021 resulted in the orders dated 5.10.2021 and 6.10.2021 being set aside due to violation of natural justice principles. The Court directed reconsideration by the second respondent within a specified timeframe. The second respondent subsequently upheld the original order dated 20.07.2021 and dismissed the appeals, leading to the present challenge.

The main contention of the petitioners is that the second respondent exhibited prejudice against them for approaching the High Court instead of the revisional authority under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. The impugned order was criticized for dismissing the appeals based on this perceived prejudice, labeling the petitioners' defense as melodramatic and accusing them of orchestrating prolonged litigation. The second respondent's observations were deemed unfair, focusing on irrelevant details and failing to consider the merits of the case objectively.

Upon perusal of the impugned order, the Court found that the second respondent's dismissal of the petitioners' explanation was unjustified. The Court emphasized the need for a fair reconsideration of the appeals, ensuring a thorough examination of all relevant material and a decision based on merit and law. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition in part, quashing the impugned order and remanding the proceedings to the second respondent for adjudication. The petitioners were directed to appear before the second respondent without further notice for further proceedings on a specified date.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses issues related to procedural fairness, prejudice, and the proper forum for legal remedies. It underscores the importance of upholding principles of natural justice, unbiased consideration of evidence, and adherence to legal procedures in administrative decisions. The Court's decision aims to rectify perceived injustices and ensure a fair opportunity for the petitioners to present their case effectively before the appropriate authority.