9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty exemptions that they were not eligible for, in the import of raw cane sugar. The import having taken place through the Karwar Port during February 2004 per vessel MV MANDARIN inasmuch as the percentage of sucrose content in the raw cane sugar did not meet the Standard Input-Output Norms (SION). The test report was alleged to be tampered with, in order to being the sucrose contents within the range specified in the SION. In pursuance of the above Intelligence, the registered office, sugar factory and the corporate office of M/s. Shree Renuka Sugars Limited as well as the petitioner's premises were searched. Consequent upon further proceedings, the second respondent issued a show cause notice vide Annexure 'C' dated 31-12-2007 to M/s. Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rily have to face the order that has been passed and hence, the impugned order herein would not survive; (f) that the petitioner being a Customs House Agent is alien to any fraud or otherwise that may have been committed. He is neither an importer nor the final recipient of the goods. He being a Customs House Agent is not liable for any action in this case. 3. Arguments were addressed on 29-6-2009. Even today, when further arguments were advanced, the learned Counsel for the respondents remained absent. On hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that an interference is called for, for the following reasons. 4. The impugned order has been passed under Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... offence is said to have taken place in February, 2004 and the show cause notice has been issued on 31-12-2007 followed by the impugned order dated 18-1-2008. He con tends that in terms of the show cause notice, a period of 30 days was granted to him to reply to the same. Even before he could file his reply to the show cause notice, the impugned order of suspension has been passed on 18-1-2008. The said order having been passed within a period of 30 days as mentioned in the show cause notice itself, is, therefore bad in law for violating the rules of natural justice. The petitioner has not been heard in a case where time was granted to him to make his submissions. He further submits that the provision for an appeal provided under 22(8) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diction of judicial review inter alia in cases where the court or the tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction or for enforcement of a fundamental right or if there has been a violation of a principle of natural justice or where vires of the Act is in question. In the aforementioned circumstances, the alternative remedy has been held not to operate as a bar." Hence in spite of the existence of an alternate remedy, the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of india is called for. 6. Moreover, 'Rule' has been issued by the order dated 12-2-2009. Hence the petitioner, at this stage cannot be relegated to the alternate forum. 7. It is contended that Regulation 20(2) of the Regulations c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
