9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice was issued and served on the petitioner, as accepted, he was aware about the adjudication proceedings. The plea taken by the petitioner that he came to know about the adjudication order only in 2009 is fallacious, wrong and cannot be accepted - Decided against petitioner. - Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6990/2012 - - - Dated:- 22-10-2013 - Sanjiv Khanna And Sanjeev Sachdeva,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. S. S. Arora Mr. D.S. Chadha, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Mukesh Anand, Advocate for UOI. Mr. Satish Aggarwala Mr. Amish Aggarwala, Advocates for respondent No. 3. ORDER Sanjiv Khanna, J. (Oral):- We have heard the counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the adjudication order in original dated 16th Dece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er was released on bail by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 3rd March, 1995. Show cause notice dated 9th November, 1994 for adjudication proceedings was duly served on him while he was in jail. This is accepted and admitted position. The petitioner, however, disputes that he had received or was aware of the adjudication order dated 16th December, 1996 passed pursuant to the show cause notice. It is submitted that the petitioner came to know and became aware of the said adjudication order only in 2009 and thereafter had obtained copy of the same and had preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), which was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 4. The appellate order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) dated 17th Augu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rgain provisions were not applicable to the prosecution in question. The said application was dismissed. On 9th February, 2012, the Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Section 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 but was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone. Customs authorities thereupon filed a writ petition and the same was allowed. The petitioner challenged the order in the writ petition by way of Special Leave to Appeal but has not been successful. 6. As per the adjudication order in original, direction was made for absolute confiscation of 9 Kilograms of gold and penalty of Rs.8 lacs was imposed. The adjudication order was sent to the address of the petitioner at Punjab but the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
