9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mine the author of the report had been afforded to the writ petitioner - In case that cannot be done, the report cannot be taken into account in deciding the matter. - GA No. 1980 of 2013, APO.T. No. 302 of 2013, W.P.No. 18 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 1-8-2013 - Girish Chandra Gupta And Tarun Kumar Das,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Choudhury, Adv. For the Respondent :Mr. S. B. Saraf, Adv. ORDER The Court : The subject matter of challenge in the writ petition was an order dated 6th November, 2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Port) by which besides confiscating the goods, order was passed directing payment of penalty which in so far as the same is directed against the writ petitioner, reads as follows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner. Mr. Choudhury, learned Advocate for the appellant writ petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court dismissed the writ petition without applying mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. He drew our attention to the following part of the impugned judgment passed by the Customs authorities which reads as follows: Shri Soumendu Saha requested to provide the copies of cross examination of Shri Bikash and Mehta and also requested for permission to cross examine the BSNL officer, who had issued certificate dt. 08-10-10. Rply was sent by Asstt. Commissioner, Adjudication Cell vide letter No.S33- 17/2011 Adjn. Port dt.09-10-12 and provided the copies of record of cross examination. As M/s. AFL Dachser and Shri Soumendu did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is submission is fully corroborated from the aforesaid part of the judgment noticed above. He submitted that the order under challenge is contrary to the rules of fair play and justice. A document was used which was never proved. Mr. Saraf, learned Advocate appearing for the Customs Department submitted that the writ petitioner had an alternative remedy. He could have preferred an appeal under section 128 of the Customs Act. Mr. Choudhury replied that an appeal could have been preferred, but before such appeal can be preferred, the amount of penalty has to be deposited which his client is not in a position to furnish. Mr. Saraf submitted that there are provisions for waiver of the penalty under section 129E of the Customs Act. There is, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
